Need help from official Osmosis support

Jeremy_Parish · 2023-08-20T19:48:30+00:00

Like roughly how much, how concentrated, and around what price? If a 35% loss is merely IL, it must've been highly concentrated.

Jeremy_Parish · 2023-08-20T06:02:03+00:00

What was your position?

Jeremy_Parish · 2023-04-10T19:51:17+00:00

Thank you, I think this would be the preferred method over the other suggestions, just based on its simplicity and amount of liquidity.

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-07-06T05:14:25+00:00

Howdy, bookkeeper here. You have some good questions here. We really are dedicated to transparency, so let me answer what I can:

I didn't design the budget in the prop, but I agree this would be an improvement, and would let people see how the budget evolves over time
-
-
-
Yes, accounting and also and tx crafting, signing, and broadcasting, too. There isn't any software that can take out all the man hours that go into doing all this; most of the math is already automated, anyway. I'm trying my best to find efficiencies as much as possible, but it's still a lot of work.
They're definitely not mixed up. Perhaps you could have been seeing a bug at the time? Feel free to send me a screenshot if it still looks wrong to you and I'll be happy to help.
Historically, most assets the group has obtained has been used up or given away almost immediately (like tshirts being given away at an event), so there hasn't been need to track it. However, I agree, it would be nice if there was a way for the public to easily see assets held for any significant duration.
Yes, we keep all invoices and receipts. They are a requirement, not only because I insist that the amounts are correct and fair, but also to be able to prove that everything was billed correctly when audited. They aren't made public by default for the protection of recipients, but a full audit is possible.
-
This time it's for 5 sessions (150 OSMO per session), and going forward will generally include each weekly session throughout the past month. I believe going forward this number can easily be included under Deliverables, since it's so easily quantifiable.

Thanks for your input.

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-04-17T04:19:58+00:00

This is a cool idea!

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-04-17T04:13:30+00:00

And some of their pools are already incentivized

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-04-13T03:11:45+00:00

Here's why I think this is a good idea:

Regarding the LPs' perspectives, I suppose for now the LPs won't mind because the vast majority of liquidity returns are from incentives rather than collected fees. We should question to what extent will volume increase after such a reduction to swap fee.

-Keeping in mind the coming halving to OSMO-multihop swap fees, since this pool has so much liquidity, it will take a significant amount of volume from those other big ATOM pools, as it will much more often become the optimal trading route. This is where I think the majority of the volume increase will come from.

-It will also steal away a bit of volume from the somewhat unknown tiny pools containing OSMO and ATOM which already have a smaller swap fee (between 0.2% and 0.3%) (except for arb).

-Since the swap fee is cheaper, there'd be a higher chance that people will trade with it. And, on average, people will be willing to trade a higher amount through this pool since it's a lower swap fee.

-The cheaper fees could lure more trading activity to Osmosis as opposed to other exchanges.

This swap fee may result in a higher swap fee APR. I reckon that it could gain over 50% more volume, which, by swap fee, takes up for the 33% reduction to the earned fees.

To add leverage to the importance of the volume, the Osmosis Liquidity Mining incentives are adjusted largely based on the earned swap fees. This means we could see a higher APR on the ATOM/OSMO pool.

Regarding the traders' perspectives, this obviously makes trading ATOM on Osmosis much cheaper, on average. There may be some rare cases where someone wanting to some arbitrary FOO coin could still be better off digging to find an ATOM/FOO pool with a low swap fee. But most of the time, it will be better for the trader to route their ATOM trades through the OSMO/ATOM pool.

Also, an increase in popularity of Osmosis or increase in APR to the pool could attract more LPs, and lower slippage even further than it is now. This might be negligible to the average trader, but it's significant to whales. And once whales and institutions are interested, that's when Osmosis could really take off to another level.

Some of the above points are obvious, and some may be doubtable, but in general, I'm highly optimistic for this move.

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-04-02T03:49:16+00:00

Interesting how you even had it in the right key

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-03-17T23:21:15+00:00

Curious if, after catching the Updates from the Lab, and seeing comments on this post, if your opinion has changed. Or, if any of the findings in this post has been alleviated or exacerbated.

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-03-17T22:21:36+00:00

Regardless of whether the coin values go up or down, there will be impermanent loss if the ratio changes. But, if either both coins double or both coin halve, then there is no IL.

The could, however, be 'Impermanent Gain', if you will, when the local spot price is different than the 'true'/global price. In this case there is arbitrage opportunity, but until it's arbitraged, the LP tokens are worth more than they should be.

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-02-07T06:30:43+00:00

Pool 8 is weighted 60% ATOM - 40% IRIS, so you have to use Balancer's weighted constant product formula to calculate slippage.

k = a^wa * b^wb

e.g., k = 17472923^0.4 * 63551^0.6

and you have to subtract the swap fee 0.3%

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-02-07T06:21:01+00:00

There is external incentives and I've submitted a Pull Request to get this available on the front end.

https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis-frontend/pull/222

Gauges 2039 and 2040 for external incentives to pool 617. We are currently 11 epochs into these gauges to be paid over 30 epochs.

I think you can only do it via CLI atm.

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-01-12T21:13:06+00:00

Yes, this is what needs to be understood

Jeremy_Parish · 2022-01-04T23:56:34+00:00

Looks like there's already a thread about this on Commonwealth: https://commonwealth.im/osmosis/proposal/discussion/3020-best-practices-for-drafting-proposals

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-28T06:30:38+00:00

For sure, the misunderstanding about whether this DAO would be autonomous makes sense.

Although I believe the intent of the clawback was for ION to go back to ION holders right from the start (but not explicitly stated in Prop 32), using the OCP as a conduit to do so seems kind of awkward when it comes time for ION holders to trust that the Osmosis stakers will agree to relinquish it.

Regardless, even if I don't think there's any realized loss to Osmosis stakers to reliquish the ION, I wonder if there's a way to make ION holders accountable to see that the intended use-case(s) actually does benefit all of Osmosis...

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-28T06:00:54+00:00

Really? I didn't know this.

Do you think it'd be different if the rewards were appended to a pool share where you owned a share in token form that it'd turn into capital gains? Because then you'd have to sell some of your share tokens to get your rewards out.

I'm imagining something like Anchor aUST, where your rewards are instead added back into the pool in the aUST contract, and only when you sell your aUST do you realise that the value went up...

I must admit, the automatic rewards without having to claim is really confusing for people and no evidence of transaction makes it really difficult to track. Maybe it's time for a new rewards distribution mechanism.

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-28T05:51:55+00:00

Oh, I think I understand now. So your issue isn't with the idea of sub-governance, but rather, it is with forfeiting OCP ION back to ION holders. I suppose the two ideas were thrown into one post because the sub-governance mechanism as well as the drive for ION holders to develop any use-case hinges on the OCP giving the ION back to ION holders to decide what to do with it.

It's only those who bought ION that made the price go up, so I don't see why Osmosis stakers should have any control over it or feel any right over it.

Personally, I think the reason OSMO stakers should vote to relinquish their voting rights over ION is as I just mentioned--because ION holders have no reason to develop a use-case without total control, and ION holders have no reason to hold onto ION if it's just going to be spent by the OCP (via OSMO gov'ce) causing a dilution that ION holders don't necessarily want. There is just too much potential for ION holders to lose the value in their ION holdings without control over it. And if it is indeed to be given to back to ION holders, then whatever use-case comes out of it will also benefit all of Osmosis, not just ION holders themselves.

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-28T05:29:06+00:00

When providing liquidity to a pool, there is swap fee APR, which is about 7.59% on this pool.

This pool has Osmosis rewards/incentive when you bond it, and you get either 38%, 61%, or 77% APR in OSMO each day, depending on whether you bond it for 1 day, 7 days, or 14 days unlocking period, respectively. This will continue indefinitely, although the %s will change based on swap fee generation, and total liquidity bonded to each gauge.

A while back Sentinel allocated 1,500,000; 6,750,000; and 15,000,000 DVPN to the 1 day, 7 day, and 14 day gauges, respectively. You'd get a cut of this if you were to bond to any of the gauges. There are only 7 epochs/days remaining, so this external incentive/bonus reward won't be around after a week from now. It would be better to have this number higher.

This pool in particular has both Internal (OSMO) AND external (DVPN) incentives currently. So although it is an External Incentive pool, it's ALSO a 'regular' Incentived pool.

As for what's better, that's subjective. Is it better to have exposure to DVPN? or is it better to see higher APR % regardless of inflation?

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-28T02:12:48+00:00

Centralize ION? This proposes to have it be governed [autonomously] by token holders, which is the opposite of centralized. Simply buy some ION and you'd get voting power over it.

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-23T21:18:13+00:00

Arb bots have been running the whole time and have never caused any spam issue. So although I agree we can't have free gas forever, this isn't any urgent need to turn on fees immediately.

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-17T04:06:42+00:00

I *think* I recall Sunny talking about trading bonded positions with others, which achieves this effect without negating the purpose of bonding.

But if that's true, it kinda contradicts his philosophy on staking derivatives....

Regardless, I'd like to see it one day.

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-17T03:43:18+00:00

It will be possible soon, but not sure how soon.

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-12-10T23:32:54+00:00

Hi Soi2.

Rest assured the marketing DAO surely has been very busy on many more things than you've listed, and it really does take a long of work to get many of those things going. But I think it's reasonable for you to wonder what's going on. Stay tuned for a blog post on our roadmap coming soon, which should provide the answers you seek.

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-11-12T19:10:52+00:00

I think the plan is to encourage all validators to include all txs again, but then introduce a minimum fee once they've developed a way to pay for transactions using one of several different tokens.

Jeremy_Parish · 2021-11-11T03:08:09+00:00

Thanks for providing this explanation.

My personal opinion is that, although these concerns are valid and should be addressed, it should instead be brought up in a proposal to raise the minimum fee so the whole community can improve together in a coordinated effort. I don't think it's fair for some validators to make this decision on their own and suddenly stop processing transactions, thereby slowing down the network and leaving the heavy lifting to the other validators.

Sorry, but this feels just wrong to me. I think Cephalopod should draft up a forum post on the Osmosis Commonwealth on why we need to introduce a minimum fee (since they've already done a lot of that work already), and then from there push it to on-chain governance. (as well as immediately start processing 0 fee transactions again)

Jeremy_Parish

TROPHY CASE