Thanks for the kind words. It’s really up to the dev team even if this passes as to when they would actual want to implement it or veto it. I really can’t disagree with you though. LP is relatively stronger now, but it’s not wide and not that deep. If someone runs, it may not be a healthy thing.
Right now people are forced into spot buys if they want to LP at all. Or go really slow with what’s leftover from the burn. Good for some more expensive for others. The burn penalties are pretty harsh and DUST is part of the earnings calculations for all positions. That friction makes it hard to grow liquidity which may be a concern for onboarding new users.
Timing may just not be right. It’s OK if this gets mothballed for now, but while I’m happy whale farming is kaput, taking profit from dust is only thru veDUST now. DUST only has one real utility and that’s like a really good band that only plays one song. There’s gotta be a middle road that’s attractive to more users and sustainable in the long term. Thanks again for the insight!
Cost, @Catalyst, can we get a re-quote? I know with the original proposal contract audits would be required, but there may be less now.
Affect on DUST price. I know people want to see DUST price recover especially myself who bought some high, but I see no downside with the RFC.
Benefits:
Deeper & wider liquidity lets more people participate with less friction. Good for the protocol & profit takers.
Lengthy 3-6 month locks with possibly amended sliding lock periods and subsequent variable Merkl rewards. The locks help keep liquidity sticky and ward off the impact of a big LP supplier exiting.
You get to keep all of your DUST at claim in exchange for the reduced variable Merkl rewards. Afterwards, resupply LP, veDUST lock, sell responsibly into the deep liquidity, or shop Nadette’s!
The other portion of your rewards goes back to the protocol to use or pass on to veDUST holders!
Amended scaled early withdrawal mechanism would allow you to mitigate IL in exchange for a DUST burn at the same rate as if you used the original claim path. No gaming the system!
It’s IL to some and DCA for others. You don’t have to participate if you don’t want the risk or want moar DUST in exchange.
What’s not to like? How would this hurt? Discuss amongst yourselves!
Timing is everything and that’s up to the team. So is advancing the RFC. It could always pass and be back burnered until the bulls start running.
No one knows what the future brings but this may be a separate mini flywheel that brings more lost boys to the yard. Thanks for your consideration and here’s to a brighter protocol future on Monad or whatever chain Neverland takes us…
Thanks for the opinions! Yeah, which is why the amendment for early withdrawal is important. I just want users to keep more of their DUST and provide more utility while making that LP sticky and bullet proof.
I keep thinking Cata is an evil genius with an entire team of minions, but I know resources are tight and he’s more of a solo ninja. He and I had chatted that the dev work on this is minimal, but not trivial, and the audits were the major drag. Possibly less audits after the changes / amendments and maybe can leverage other contracts?
You are correct about why people buy dust, though I feel like we could change that!
I introduced someone I was following on X (Yessah Blessah) to Neverland. A few days ago he told me that he already has purchased 29,000 $dust and buys at least 100 per day. He is very long on $dust. This is not related to the RPC but it great if Neverland users would work the hype angle more. Maybe the protocol could host some social media contests/promotions, etc. There’s a whole genre of people who love creating hype on X, etc. I think it would be a good way to introduce the protocol and $dust