Hey Contra, thanks very much for the input, it has made us think a lot! I have edited the proposal now following yours and other peoples input. But, let me address your points:
-
DANA. I dont see why you say the best place to trade the DANA token will be the concomitant protocol (Ardana). Ardana is a stablecoin hub, and as such, it is meant to trade only stablecoins and other similar assets. Using the Curve stableswap formula for non-stable assets can be pretty dangerous, because at one point in the formula slippage becomes huge. If Ardana wants/does succeed, it will need a CPMM (Constant Product Market Maker) with a deep and reliable DANA pool for the token to trade in. This is what we aim to become and thus we want to scale that DANA liquidity thru the MIN Farm. Also, have a look at current DANA/ADA APR, its pretty low now hehe.
-
It is a good point yes. Tbh, we are looking mostly at APRs right now, and at how much MIN we are spending per pool to get TVL + Volume, thats why we wanted to scale back a bit the Kitty Farms. Going forward, we need to start taking into account more quantitative data/metrics for the adjustment. Ideally, we have a hybrid model that combines quantitative and qualitative analysis. For now, however, this seems difficult to implement, but we are working on it already with some community members. The problem with Sundae is that they exclusively look at TVL, we should consider other factors as well (volume, partnership, new farmâŚ).
-
On accountability: no proposal is being passed unanimously, there are 26 people who voted on this allocation including the Minswap team. We have published the rebalance to the public before it is implemented and just 1 day after we came to this new allocation. We are also actively monitoring the Forum for feedback, in fact we decided to extend the implementation one week till the 29th of March to ensure we take as much feedback as possible, and we are still open to make adjustments. I, personally, am against any sort of âpersonal disclusure of biasesâ, because we have made it clear that we will be looking and adjusting the allocations according to the feedback from the Forum. I believe we should look exclusively at the strength of arguments, instead of who is laying them out. Thats why I am aiming to respond to every comment. If you disagree with my points, kindly lmk, and we could readjust the entire proposal if what you propose makes more sense