Summary
tl,dr: users demand cheaper ways to participate in Vita, and governance. I propose that we experimentally explore bridging some small amount of $Vita owned by the DAO to most used side-chains and layer 2s. Starting with Polygon and GnosisChain due to highest adoption, and later potentially Arbitrum, Optimism, Zksync and others.
Details
To ensure enough liquidity i’d propose budgeting $250k worth of $Vita and $250k worth of ETH to start with, to basically have one https://balancer.exchange/ pool on Polygon with $300k in total liquidity, and one https://sushi.com/ pool on Gnosis Chain with $200k in liquidity.
To ensure that the price of $vita is similar on Polygon and Gnosis Chain compared to Ethereum I’d propose additional $50k worth of Vita+ETH on Polygon and Gnosis Chain each, controlled by the VitaDAO multi-sig with a bot buying or selling to ensure the prices are synchronized.
Implementation: Transferring total of 600k worth Vita/ETH ($300k in Vita, $300k in ETH) to Polygon/GnosisChain
Transferring 350k worth of Vita/ETH (50-50) to VitaDAOs polygon multisig
Transferring 250k worth of Vita/ETH (50-50) to VitaDAOs gnosis chain multisig
Additionally the tokenomics working group would suggest allocating $100k worth of Vita in rewards for providing liquidity on Balancer/Polygon (~$60k), and Sushi/GnosisChain (~40k) for the first year, which is fairly low considering the DAO would earn back a majority of these rewards by being a main liquidity provider.
I think this is an excellent discussion to have. If we start with a side chain, I would suggest we go with Polygon primarily (as opposed to splitting with GnosisChain) as they appear to have more development plans and more of a community than GnosisChain at the moment. Plus UniSwap v3 just deployed on Polygon. I’d suggest we maximize liquidity there.
I also do think exploring Layer 2 options would be very valuable even at this early stage. Would be interested in seeing these Layer 2 options incorporated more explicitly into this plan.
Hi Dani, welcome and thanks for the valuable input! It could certainly make sense to explore focusing on Polygon for now, although I think GnosisChain is growing fairly rapidly due to all the native integration with Gnosis safe, cowswap and popular DAOs and services such as POAPs being primarily there, but it could be worth focusing on Polygon for now and exploring Gnosis Chain later… will discuss on our next tokenomics<>gov<>tech working group call
Agree but we should be very specific which bridges we use and opt for the most popular // recognized. I’ve seen in a few cases that bridge UX has been problematic for a lot of folks as they transfer tokens only to realize that the liquidity pools on the other side used a different bridge for transfers.
I’d say to test the program on Polygon and then roll it out to whatever chain is willing to provide mining subsidies for the pools // bridging. Example Celo bridge subsidy program.
I often use DEXTools.io with BNB pairs (third largest market cap after all), Pancakeswap is the same but just never work correctly.
The fees are quite inexpensive on Bnb pairs, but I’m under the impression there are a lot of worthless projects. Bnb with Bsc might worth to take a look (maybe also Binance Dex).
Maybe try some smaller cefi exchange too?
I am mainly from the XRP community and I know a lot of smaller projects are on Bitrue (I’m talking about it just as an example).
They have a dedicated program where projects commit a part of their supply as a reward program for holders (doesn’t add any liquidity anywhere I think):
thanks for sharing! agree that there is a lot of activity on bsc… but seems like a majority of our community are bigger fans of solutions like polygon, arbitrum etc., but could be worth exploring mid-term
That’s the result from the discussion here and on Discord throughout the last couple of weeks. If I recall correctly, the main argument for two different L2s/sidechains is simply that there is currently not an uncontested, obvious L2/sidechain where most of the activity happens. Both Polygon and Gnosis Chain have there strenghts, with Polygon being apparently a bit more popular among the wider crypto community, but Gnosis Chain being used by many DAO tools (1Hive/Aragon/Gardens, Colony) and may get another huge push now that Gnosis is putting its resources behind what was previously called the xDai Network. So in short, choosing two (but not once, but also not ten) L2s/sidechains is just a way of diversifying risk and hopefully betting on the right horse(s).
The specifics whether the pools will be on Sushi, Balancer or elsewhere depend on a couple of things that may also still change, I believe, such as rewards provided by the DEX. If there’s a new argument to change the current proposal, we should definitely consider that and discuss that on Discord. This proposal has passed phase 2 now though and has just gone live on Snapshot for voting.
