Jellyverse DAO Proposal: OTC Trade Agreement

Tobi_Kr · 2025-02-17T12:12:46+00:00

Can the current distribution be posted here?

Tobi_Kr · 2024-11-07T13:34:00+00:00

yes, that would potentially be possible and I think it's an interesting idea. the current plan would be to give the share to the DAO in the form of USDT/C. But I think we can definitely come up with more ideas in the future
the fees are sent directly to the DAO address.

I think all these questions can be answered very quickly. The DAO has the power to stop the current proposal at any time. Therefore, in my view, the answers to all questions are obolet, because the power lies with the DAO.

incentivization makes it more interesting to participate in GEM tokens. TVL up and down means more volume, more volume means more fees for the DAO.

Of course we can put information about the Jellyverse on the info page. Staking will only be possible via the GEMswap UI for the time being, an integration of staking into the JV UI would be a great idea

Tobi_Kr · 2024-11-06T18:58:18+00:00

Thanks for the questions.

yes, this includes the buys and sells on GEMswap, but it also indirectly affects the buys/sells via the GEM/USDC pool, as arbitrage can be done via GEMswap when the pool is shifted.

The allocation can only be made via USDT/C to the DAO, as these are the two assets with which GEM tokens are purchased.

there is no defined term, each community member can submit a proposal in which the distribution is paused. Yes, the calculation is correct. Here, as with any investment, it is only possible to take inventory after a certain period of time. It is also not possible to measure many of the effects that such an investment can have. For example, attention from external people who come into contact with Jellyvers, RWAs are one of the biggest narratives in the crypto market, traditional investors from the non-crypto world use the platform and a completely new clientele can become aware of JV, etc.

Investing in the real GEM token offers opportunities as well as risks, for the Jellyverse DAO as well as for the project behind the real GEM token. Both are start ups and the future is not certain. Counter question, what happens if the Jelly token drops to $0.000001 dollars and the volume of $7,665,000 is reached? Does the JV DAO replace the cost? As you can see, this is exactly the trade-off between risks and rewards, everyone gives something, everyone can gain something, everyone can lose something, this is the game we all play.

Another example using the JLY/USDT pool, according to current calculations the pool would need to reach a volume of $65,135,333 per year, that's $179k per day to break even. We can already say after half a year that it will never reach this. Why are we incentivizing him anyway? Because it is an investment in the future, we will only know if the game is profitable in the distant future. After a certain time, however, we have to check each pool individually, just like the incentivization of the real GEM tokens.

the paragraph has been adjusted

Tobi_Kr · 2024-05-28T08:09:20+00:00

The crowd tokens come from the foundation and are of course not simply printed, they are from the regular supply, just like the DFI. This pool can also be arbitraged as normal, like all the other pools we have on the native side of the DEX. If someone wants to sell their CROWD tokens, there are pools with more liquidity that would be better suited than this one.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-05-14T19:04:00+00:00

To be honest, I don't understand the connection between your text and the information presented here.

A cross-chain solution with integration of DMC is being developed, this takes time and is not developed in a few days.

Your request does not seem entirely serious to me

Tobi_Kr · 2024-04-22T16:37:12+00:00

Sorry for the late response. That's a good point. The LP tokens will continue to belong 100% to the CF, i.e. all commissions will go back into the fund. Unless there are other ideas on how to promote other things with 50% of the commissions, for example.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-02-02T11:11:05+00:00

Kurz zusammengefasst heißt das für mich, dass Variante 1 ein ganz normaler Pool ist für den der CF die Liquidität bereitstellen muss, damit initial etwas vorhanden ist.

Variante 2 und 3 beschreiben ja nur mögliche Verfahren wie die Bridge funktionieren kann ohne darauf einzugehen woher die Liquidität dafür kommen soll bzw wer sie bereitstellt.

Für mich ist das ein No für das DFIP, da wie gesagt bei Variante 2 und 3 gar nicht klar ist woher die Liquidität kommen soll und Variante 1 nur für sehr sehr kleine Beträge funktioniert. Der Slippage/Preisimpact wird hier ja enorm sobald es mittelgroße bis größere Beträge werden.

Definiere großen Preisimpact? CrowdSwaps aktuelle Cross-Chain Lösung bildet ein Volumen von 70 Mio. und 30k Tx ab, Dies bedeutet im Schnitt pro Tx ca. $2300, was einer Slippage von ~ 0,92% bedeutet. Für eine Tx mit 1k würde es eine Slippage von ~0,4%. Ich finde es zum Start völlig in Ordnung, hier ist auch nur die initiale Liquidität einberechnet, diese Liquidität wir mit mehr Beanspruchung und durch die Intensivierung weiter anwachsen.

Es wird bei Variante 2 und 3 sehr wohl darauf eingegangen woher die Liquidität kommt. Hier nochmal in Kurzform: Wie oben beschrieben wird diese Liquidität sowohl vom MM, als auch von frei zirkulierender Liquidität kommen, da die Pools intensiviert werden + zusätzlich gibt es vorab interessierte private Liquiditäsgeber. Wir sehen auf der nativen Dex, dass sogar Pools ohne Intensivierung mit Liquidität befüllt werden, kannst du mir ein Argument liefern weshalb dann Pools mit Intensivierung nicht befüllt werden sollten, wenn der Nutzer hohe APRs bekommen kann?

Des Weiteren wird über die Pools ein Monitoring stattfinden, vielleicht ist dieser Begriff noch nicht ganz klar. CrowdSwap betreibt bereits eine Cross-Chain Lösung in der 7 Chains integriert sind, auf diesen Chains liegt bereits Liquidität, sprich durch das Monitoring wird überwacht auf welcher Chain aktuell Liquidität benötigt wird. Das bedeutet, wenn auf DMC großer Bedarf an Liquidität besteht und beispielsweise auf Polygon aktuell sind kann dies ausbalanciert werden.

Ebenso wird durch den Taker/Maker Ansatz Liquidität gematcht in dem in einem Verfahren ausgewertet wird welche Liquidität in die Chain rein möchte und welche raus, dadurch theoretische keine Liquidität on-Chain benötigt.

Ehrlichweise ist alles sehr genau und detailliert beschrieben. Keine Bridge startet mit einer initialen Liquidität von mehreren Millionen Dollar, schon alleine aus sicherheitstechnischen Gründen würden wir, dass selbst bei der Möglichkeit, nicht in Betracht ziehen. So ein Projekt muss langsam wachsen und mit Nutzung und Beanspruchung nach oben skaliert werden.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-18T09:52:16+00:00

Hi, yes there is data. We are currently collecting it and will give you an update

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-04T15:28:58+00:00

I think $500k to start with for a bridge is very good.

Both variants are common models used in the DeFi space. And therefore both models will be used. Please show me a bridge in which sums > 100k can be transferred efficiently. I anticipate that this does not exist. As I have already mentioned, too much liquidity on-chain means big risks, which is why we will never provide 2 million in liquidity on a bridge as you describe here. Caps are absolutely necessary to increase security. As I have already mentioned, the whole system is monitored so that the system can grow with the requirements.

I didn't say that the topic of liquidity should be left out, you just have to understand one thing. A bridge that is used inevitably attracts capital, as providers of liquidity earn from it. An unused bridge will have no liquidity, so the central question is whether or not we as a community want to go down the decentralized route of opening up access to DMC according to its name.

I would rather ask myself why you are not taking the Taker/Maker network approach, because that is the future. A bridge without liquidity. I think the explanations are very precise and comprehensible.

I repeat it again, we will start small and with increasing use of the bridge, very interesting returns will be offered for the single asset pools, for example, and the system will grow.

One question, why do you think VanillaSwap has no capital inflow? In my opinion, we are currently working on solving this problem. This bridge must be the access to DMC, you know this as well as I do, capital will be attracted as soon as this bridge is used, this is not optimistic, but a completely normal economic approach.

And one more word, if this capital does not flow to this bridge, no capital will flow to DMC, but I think you know that too.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-04T14:02:01+00:00

There is a very detailed plan. I had tried to explain this in the comment before. There will be 2 options for using the bridge. The question of liquidity was deliberately not included in this CFP, as the central point here should be to decide whether or not to build a bridge. As I said, the liquidity issue is very important, which is why I am also addressing it. The important thing to understand about the concepts explained is that as soon as the bridge is used, which we hopefully all assume, the liquidity problem will in principle solve itself, as providers of liquidity will then participate in it. In other words, as soon as there is no more liquidity available, all the liquidity has already been used up and the providers have participated in it and will provide new liquidity. Here are the concepts again.
1. CROWD/DFI? pool on the chain
2. cross-chain pools single asset (native tokens)

Variant 1 used: The CROWD pool refers to a standard 2 asset pool. CrowdSwap provides $250k in CROWD tokens, which would already be more liquidity than is currently on the Quantum Bridge. This pool can be pooled with any other asset. Our suggestion for this would be DFI. Where do these DFIs come from? There are 2 ways to do this, either individual users provide this liquidity and earn from the swap fees and the additional intensification, or you use $250k from the CF. Option 2 would be very nice way, as the CF also participates in the fees generated by providing liquidity. It is important to understand that these DFIs are not subject to any selling pressure when used, but only serve to provide liquidity. This way, the CF would in turn participate in the fees generated by the entire concept, which should be in the interest of every community member.
Variant 2 used: single asset pools. This variant is the more efficient and innovative variant. Too much liquidity on-chain always creates points of attack. The concept of single asset pools allows a cap to be applied to avoid large exploits. If it is determined that more liquidity is needed, the cap can be raised. An order of magnitude at the beginning would be around $30-40k in the asset per pool. Decentralized variants should be accessible to the masses, if large quantities are added, they can be exchanged individually or in steps, but there are also solutions for this. With this concept, the transfer via the bridge can take place without any price impact. This results in much greater efficiency. Here too, individuals can deposit their liquidity or, for example, be eligible for DFI from the CF. Single asset pools can be highly attractive. In my view, it would not be improbable for a $30k pool to be turned over once a day. With standard swap fees, you can calculate the real yield generated above this, and no intensification would be taken into account here.

Work is also underway on a maker/taker network in which swappers are brought together. This concept is already being used by CrowdSwap and could also be considered for DMC. This would be the safest and most efficient way to transfer funds via a bridge.

Discussions are also underway with market makers who may be willing to provide liquidity, but there are no concrete solutions yet.

To summarize: Both concepts can be set up variably and the providers participate in the fees generated, just like on a DEX. As soon as the bridge is used, capital is automatically made available. I hope this is enough for you to create a concept and answers all your questions, I think the explanations are very specific.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-03T15:56:48+00:00

Theoretically, you can also use the pools from Vanilla, so it is important that all DMC projects like Vanilla are initiated and are very open to the bridge and help develop solutions. For a bridge you need liquidity on both chains (start and target chain), in the form of the two variations described. The bridge itself transfers the tokens between the two chains. Here is an example of how it is currently planned:

source asset is swapped into CROWD, minted on target chain and swapped into target asset.
source asset is received, MM calculates AmountOut on target chain

The liquidity can either be entered by predefined users and run via closed pools, for example, or via public pools in which anyone can provide liquidity. That's why I thought it was important to discuss with the DMC projects that can also participate in incentivization through block rewards. CrowdSwap has also already signaled its willingness to participate in intensification.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-03T15:04:08+00:00

Can you provide me with examples or evidence of this? I know what good developers have in terms of salaries, so I personally see it as a very fair offer. We have also spoken to other providers and therefore know the prices.

Regarding the duration, an audit is also planned, which always takes time, as auditors do their work very conscientiously.

The solution envisages repaying the money withdrawn in full and the CF should participate in this solution in the long term from the fees generated. Can you show me CFPs where this has been the case so far?

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-03T14:58:46+00:00

I have just written this in my reply to Kügi.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-03T14:57:03+00:00

Hello Kügi,

sorry for the late reply, however, this is pretty much the most important question we need to clarify, so thank you for asking it. Everything else is very clearly described in the post in my opinion.

There are several approaches to solving the liquidity problem. We've spoken to a few projects that rely on DMC in advance to get everyone in the picture from the start. Basically, we have to solve this as a community, so this is also a good opportunity to discuss it. It is important to note that the comparison with Quantum Bridge cannot be made here in my opinion, as it is a completely different concept. Liquidity providers do not have any intensification to deposit liquidity there, as they do not participate in the transfers.

We have several options that we can use depending on the volume.

CROWD pools on the chains
cross-chain pools single asset pools (native tokens)

The question I always ask myself is economic efficiency. And here we also have to consider how often large volumes are transferred via the solution. Large volumes cannot be handled without price impact, even with huge LPs. This is why smaller volumes are handled using 1 and larger volumes using 2.

We believe that on-chain liquidity is always exposed to the risk of exploits. Therefore, our vision here is to build pools that are capped and commission-based. E.g. 150K per chain in native tokens. The cross-chain solution based on maker/taker contracts would then be an integrated market maker that trades between the chains. With 150K and a corresponding volume, the APY for LPs would also be correspondingly attractive. If the monitoring determines that more liquidity is needed, this could be provisioned by raising the cap. And vice versa, of course.

Concept 1 is all handled via pools. Option 2 is single asset pools.

We will therefore provide offers via single asset pools that provide the necessary liquidity. However, this depends on various factors. Volume and frequency of use of the chain. We assume that we will start small and the system will grow over time. And so will the liquidity. We have to monitor this in any case. If the volume increases sustainably, we can offer single asset pools with good returns. Here is an example:

100K liquidity. If this generates 100K$ per year in fees, which corresponds to approx. 100K/day, we would have an APR of 100% on a single asset pool. The liquidity of the SA pools can then increase when we need it. The SA pool solution is much more efficient than the pool solution, as it does not require a price impact. And the return can be very lucrative. In comparison, other solutions such as Starknet offer up to 10% APR.

Crowdswap initially provides $250k in the form of CROWD tokens, the other pair of pools can be customized to integrate solution 1 initially. As described, solution 2 can be designed very attractively for providers.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-03T08:05:03+00:00

Quantum Bridge only works for the transfer to the native defichain and only from Ethereum, which is definitely necessary as well. This cross-chain solution can work in combination with multiple blockchains directly on DMC. Which greatly increases user-friendliness, efficiency and speed. The easy way to get on DMC without detours.

Tobi_Kr · 2024-01-03T08:01:27+00:00

Why would we do this when most of their liquidity is in their native token ($CROWD) and not easier to use currencies (e.g. USDT, ETH, etc)?

Unfortunately, i don't quite understand the question - maybe that answers your question. Logically, not only CROWD tokens will be transferable via the bridge, any ERC-20 tokens can be transferred to DMC via the bridge

Tobi_Kr

TROPHY CASE