►
From YouTube: DXbiz Weekly Meeting [2020-11-02]
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
Welcome
everyone
to
this
development
call
november
2nd,
don't
mind
my
voice
under
the
weather.
It's
not
corona.
C
So
first
up,
we've
got
the
proposal
from
luna
social
that
that
is
from
out
of
series
of
conversations
that
we've
had
with
them
regarding
how
to
best
make
a
first
engagement,
they're
they're
down
for
for
putting
liquidity
up
on
dxo,
and
I
think
they've
delayed
their
token
launch,
not
because
of
it,
but
just
out
of
coincidence
and
yeah,
I
think
we're
still
we're
still
finalizing
things
for
the
dxvap
launch,
so
there's
still
a
possibility
that
there
can
be
like
a
simultaneous
launch
of
the
illumina
token
with
dx.
C
Swap
I
don't
know
if
that's
ideal,
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
have
dick
swap
live
for
a
while
before
before
the
luna
sale
starts.
But
the
proposal,
basically
an
mou
saying
we'll
be
exploring
joint
promotion.
C
Regarding
their
token,
our
decks
and
having
like
a
real
commitment
of
liquidity
on
there,
which
I
think
is
amazing,
especially
if
that
liquidity
is,
is
exclusive
to
like
the
dx
dial
ecosystem,
where
the
liquidity
is
generated
off
of
mesa
and
then
and
then
migrated
over
to
dx,
swap
with
the
proper
communication.
I
think
we
can.
C
We
can
help
the
community
sort
of
you
know,
point
them
in
the
right
direction
and
you
know
see
if
they
can
start
trading
on
our
platform.
So
another
interesting
thing
is
luna
is
gonna,
have
like
a
dual
token
launch,
I
believe
on
like
different,
like
just
two
dexes
simultaneously.
C
C
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
good
move,
I
don't
know
if
that's
if
it,
if
it
incurs
the
risk
that
that
dmm
had
last
time
with
scammers
trying
to
point
people
into
random
links,
saying
oh
the
token's
here,
but
once
the
once
the
proposal
passes.
I
think
we
can
have
a
steady
line
of
communication
on
when
their
token
launches
and
any
further
announcements
from
them
regarding
that,
so
that
we
can
sort
of
synchronize
on
it
and
maybe
that'll
lead
to
more
collaboration.
C
C
A
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
actually
a
pretty
good
opportunity
to
accomplish
a
bunch
of
different
initiatives
or
kind
of
business
lines
or
products
that
we've
been
trying
to
build
for
a
while
with
luna,
because
it's
kind
of
emerging
right
now.
A
So
obviously
the
dx
swap
you
mentioned,
but
I
don't
know
what
the
timing
of
how
their
timing
is
changing,
but
to
I
thought
that
they
were
going
to
do
a
mesa
sale
first,
as
you
described
this,
I
assume
there
would
be
a
mesa
sale
and
then,
after
that
it
would
migrate
to
dx
swap
so
I
think
the
timing
on
that
could
be
fine,
considering
if
they
do
like
a
mesa
sale
in
like
the
next
two
to
three
weeks.
A
I
think
a
like
that
would
make
sense,
for
I
think
that
would
fit
the
timeline
of
dx
swap
there
not
if
they
were
looking
to
like
launch
initially
on
dx
swap
and
then.
Secondly,
I
just
read
a
really
great
article
about
mesa
working
on
xdi
and
I
wasn't
sure
if
this
would
be
like
an
opportunity
for
luna
to
also
open
up
that
channel.
So
we
could
kind
of
do
the
mesa.
A
Mainnet
and
mesa
xdi,
ideo
and
kind
of
help
them
with
that,
and
then
help
that
all
of
that
liquidity
transfer
over
to
dx
swap
whether
it
couldn't
be
a
dx
pop
on
xdi.
So
I'm
wondering
if
we
could
kind
of
like
you
know
if
we're
partnering
with
them,
you
know
we
are.
This
would
be
getting
them
to
operate
a
lot
on
some
of
our
schedule
and
time.
But
I
wonder
if
we
could
try
to
do
almost
all
of
those
things
with
them,
be
a
good
opportunity
for
mesa
too.
C
E
E
A
But
I
mean
I
I
don't
I
mean
I
think
xdi.
I
guess
the
very
simple
process
of
ideal
mesa
mainnet
to
dx,
swap.
I
think
that
we
should
be
able
to
do
that
with
the
luna
and
we
should
figure
out
how
to
make
that
happen,
regardless
of
the
ex
die
component.
C
Yeah
I've
I've
reached
out
regarding
like
when
they
are
when
they
plan
to
launch
things.
If
I
can
get
dates,
I
haven't
really
gotten
anything
specific
from
them
yet
regarding
it,
but
it
seems
like
they're
not
rushing.
F
You
mentioned
they.
They
want
to
launch
in
two
different
exchanges
to
do
the
sale.
Do
you
know
which
other
exchange
and
why
they,
they
chose
to
to
add
another
exchange.
C
I
haven't
gotten
an
explanation
for
it.
I
saw
a
tweet
about
it.
If
you
give
me
a
minute
I
can,
I
can
look
for
it.
C
G
C
C
No,
I
mean
I
I've
read
the
tweet
I
asked
about
it.
I
haven't
heard
anything.
I
read
the
tweet
and
there
was
no
real
explanation
for
it,
but
I
know
that
defined
money
market.
They
wanted
to
do
two
exchanges
for
to
just
reach
more
liquidity.
That
way-
and
I
know
some
of
the
guy
like
dolomite-
is
owned
by
like
a
couple
of
the
guys
from
d
flat
money
markets,
so
it
was
kind
of
like
in
their
personal
interest
to
get
activity.
There
could
be
a
similar
thing
for
bounce
finance.
C
I
don't
know
if
they're,
that
close
to
a
luna
in
that
manner,
but
I
imagine
that
they're
just
kind
of
hedging
and
seeing
like
if
one
auction
is
better
than
the
other.
G
I
mean
user
experience,
it
would
be
easier
for
their
users
to
do
it
on
bounce.
No,
no!
No,
like
it's
pretty
simple
from
that
perspective,
but
from
the
like
partnership
side,
I
don't
see
anything
right.
G
Everywhere,
like
literally
every
time,
if,
if
someone
wants
to
make
an
idea
on
on
bounce,
someone
else
could
copy
the
name
of
the
like
the
what
they
call
these
cards
that
they
have
and
then
they
could
same
time,
publish
that
link
or
spam.
It
out,
or
I
don't
know,
hack
and
moderator's
account,
which
happened.
G
It
was
it
wasn't,
a
big
idea
where
it
happened.
Someone
hacked
one
of
the
moderators
telegram
account
and
published
bounce
dot,
finance
ido
with
a
fake
like
it
was
a
fake
idea
and
yeah.
A
lot
of
people
lost
money,
including
me
by
the
way
so-
and
that
can't
happen
on
me,
though,
right
because
you
need
to
get
the
proposal
over
and
you
need
to
your
token
to
token
on
on
yeah
all
right.
G
G
Yeah,
I
mean
look,
look
when
people,
so
it's
nothing
wrong
with
bounce
finance.
It's
like
people
doing
scams
on
uniform
youtube
is
not
shitty
for
that,
but
just
from
their
perspective
where,
where
like
scams
are
happening
here,
and
if
you
want
an
easy
way
to
make,
people
do
an
ideo,
there's
risks
and
that's
where
we
should
like
maybe
talk
with
them
about
about
this,
not
scare
them,
but
just
just
get
them.
B
C
Right
so
I'm
sure
they
have
multiple
concerns
like
it
could
be
around
gas.
It
could
be
around
user
experience.
It
could
be
around
just
liquidity
overall
yeah
right.
So
I
guess,
depending
on
that,
like
we
can
make
a
case
we're
just
sticking
with
mesa.
So
that's
any
more
comments
regarding
mesa
next
time
or
luna.
C
All
right,
so
we
can,
if
you
guys
like
we
could
continue
some
of
the
takeaways
from
the
the
dx
swap
strategy
call
on
friday.
I
can
point
you
to
the
thread
again.
A
Yeah,
I
can
maybe
kind
of
kick
things
off
here
so
trying
to
reach
consensus.
You
know
dick
swap
is
we've
been
iterating
on
for
a
long
time
and
I
think
in
the
last
kind
of
10
days,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
on
a
host
different
areas
and
revolves
to
strategy
and
moving
forward,
and
I
think
we're
getting
to
agreement
but
we're
actually,
I
think,
still
pretty
far
off
in
it.
A
A
Yeah
so
that's
kind
of
the
the
main
concern
and
then
the
the
discussion
I
think
on
friday.
Really
we
had
like
three
things
we
agree
or
we
were
talking
about
as
potential
solutions
to
these,
and
these
are
different,
so
one
would
be
some
type
of
dxd
buyback,
because
dx
style
thinks
the
price
of
dxd
is
below
the
market.
A
Two
is
the
signal
goal
to
have
the
dxd
eth
pool
of
a
certain
size
by
a
certain
date
and
if
that's
not
met,
then
dx
style
will
supply
dxd
itself,
I'm
not
clear
exactly
on
on
where
that
source
would
come
from
or
what
price
but
and
then
the
third
component
would
be
that
there
would
be
like
an
omen
market
bounty
on
whether
this
liquidity
goal
is
reached,
that
the
dx
dow
itself
would
fund
to
try
to
basically
encourage
dxt
holders
to
buy
the
yes
tokens
and
then
supply
dxd
liquidity
kind
of
benefiting
from
both
of
those.
A
So
that's
kind
of
I
think,
where
we're
at
right
now
for
things
we
need
to
come
to
some
agreement
on
this
week.
I
imagine
that
we
will
go.
We
need
to
have
another
signal
proposal
that
goes
this
week.
That
would
kind
of
be
an
update
on
the
previous
one.
So
I
think
the
point
of
this
discussion
is
like
what
are
we
wanting
to
put
in
that
signal
proposal?
A
A
So
the
idea
being,
we
could
use
omen
as
a
bounty
system
to
incentivize
liquidity
on
dx,
swap
so
whenever
anyone,
so
we
would
create,
say
a
dxd
omen,
an
omen
market
that
said
that
there
will
be
x
amount
of
dxd
in
this
market
on
a
certain
date,
and
we
would
issue
give
that
conditional
token
to
anyone
that
supplied
dxd
liquidity,
so
people
would
be
incentivized
to
hold
dxd
until
the
certain
date
would
go.
So
I
think
that's
a
really
interesting
idea
for
kind
of
using
all
of
our
different
products.
A
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
find
cohesive,
a
conclusive
strategy
on
that.
I
think
what
we
need
is
like.
Well,
what
do
we
do
to
launch
dx
swap
in
a
secure
and
in
a
responsible
way
that
kind
of
creates
a
good
minimum,
viable
product?
And
so
for
that
the
we
need
to
possibly
update
the
fee
structure.
A
So,
in
the
previous
signal
proposal
the
fee
was
at
0.15
percent,
primarily
because
we
were
trying
that
the
liquidity
was
going
to
be
coming
from
dx
dow,
so
the
fees
didn't
matter,
but
if
we're
going
to
be
trying
to
incentivize
people
to
bring
their
liquidity
over
that
kind
of
changes,
the
fee
strategy
and
then
second,
really,
how
do
we
what's
our
approach
to
supplying
liquidity
or
incentivizing
liquidity,
so
that
was
kind
of
the
conversation
on
friday?
A
I
don't
know
if
people
had
thoughts
over
the
weekend
as
it
marinated
or
other
other
revelations.
D
Since
then,
I
just
wanna
add
that
I
think
the
most
pressing
decision
is
the
what
the
default
fee
would
be,
because
that
actually
is
a
parameter
in
the
core
contracts,
so
that
is
needed
to
launch.
If
that's
going
to
change,
we
want
to
change
that
before
it.
It
launches
and
we're
getting
very
close
to
the
core
contracts
being
released.
So.
C
I
guess
another
high
level
question
is
like
it
seems
like
we
have
to
choose
between
prioritizing
the
best
interests
of
liquidity
providers
and
traders.
You
might
disagree,
but
it's
just
a
thought
that
I'm
having
and
how
would
we
prioritize
them?
I
mean
because,
in
my
opinion
I
feel
like
we,
like
the
liquidity
providers
matter,
a
lot
like
the
most
in
terms
of
like
users,
so
I
think,
having
fees
that
are
leaning
more
towards
their
best
interests
are,
I
think,
number
one
and
then,
and
then
number
number
two
like
very
close.
C
D
And
that
was
a
piece
of
feedback
that
I
think
pope
machina,
who
actually
joined
the
call
on
friday
kind
of
articulated
was
that
for
the
liquidity
providers,
if
the
fees,
0.15
percent
you're
kind
of
you're,
it's
not
going
to
be
very
appealing
for
them
coming
over
from
unit
swap
at
0.3
percent
or
dxo
up
at
0.6.
All
right.
Sorry,
balancer
at
like
point
six
percent
for
the
above
20
poor
pool.
A
Yeah,
I
guess,
before
we
get
into
the
fee
strategy,
I
think
it's
important
to
decide
whether
or
not
dx
dow
is
going
to
supply
liquidity,
because
the
whole
reason
that
we
have
low
fees
is
that
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
the
liquidity
providers
in
the
initial
stage,
because
dx
dow
is
going
to
be
that
liquidity
provider.
So
if
we
like
decide
not
to
do
that,
then
I
think
we
should
completely.
We
shouldn't
use
low
fees
at
all
and
I
think
we're
like
moving
towards
that
that
direction.
I
just
think
like.
E
D
E
E
If
we
get
10
times
the
volume
of
of
a
unit
swap
even
at
0.15
percent
with
10
times
the
volume
that
could
be
really
good
for
lps.
But
you
you
don't
know
that
balance
until
you
actually
try
it
and
if
0.15
after,
like
the
first
month,
even
with
massive
volume,
is
still
not
great
for
lps
dx
swap
can
increase
the
fee,
so
you
have
to
just
pick
something
at
the
beginning,
but
it's
a
balance
between
volume,
attraction
and
nlp
earnings.
So
you
can't
just
say
that
higher
fees
are
better
for
lps.
E
D
A
I
mean
I
think
volume
is
driven
by
uniswap.exchange
right,
like
you'd,
have
to
convince
all
of
the
trader
like
traders
to
kind
of
come
over,
and
it
would
be
tough
to
do
that.
I
think
that
then
you
have
to
come
up
with
a
strategy
to
like.
Have
traders
switch
from
uniswap
to
dx,
swap
aggregators
will
automatically
do.
E
A
A
D
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
compete
with
other
dx.
This
is
the
feedback
right
from
on
the
forum
and
stuff
isn't.
The
tx
now
should
not
be
competing
with
dxd
holders
on
liquidity,
providing
unless
there's
a
good
reason
for
it,
and
the
only
good
reason
I
could
see
it
would
be
to
make
dxop
win
somehow
right.
So
I
would
think
you
would
only
want
to
provide
liquidity
from
the
treasury
as
like
a
last
resort.
If,
for
you
know,
if
it's
necessary
to
get
ta
swap
into
a
good
position,.
A
Yeah,
I
I
think
there
could
be-
I
I
guess
it's
difficult
because
there's
like
dxd
holders
and
then
like
dx,
swap
strategy
and
they're,
actually
not
perfectly
or
necessarily
aligned
in
like
the
short
term
in
the
short
term.
But
I'm
I
think,
like
long
term,
geek
style
should
be
able
to
market
make
and
use
its
treasury,
and
so.
G
So
if,
if
you
go
to
check
where
to
buy,
if
you
want
to
buy
dxd
today-
and
then
you
want
to
put
in
let's
say
4k-
you
don't
go
to
uniswap
right,
because
the
price
will
the
price
will
go
away
like
really
fast
and
you'll
actually
lose
on
that
trade.
But
if
you
go
to
balancer,
you
would
be
able
to
do
that
trade
much
better.
So
my
my
question
is,
first
of
all.
If
we
want
the
volume
on
the
x
swap,
we
need
a
lot
of
dxd
eth
right.
G
G
So,
if
that's
the
case,
then
we
have
like
a
chicken
and
egg
problem
again
here.
So
we
need
a
lot
of
dxd
on
big
swap.
We
can
provide
that.
But
if
we
do,
then
the
xd
holders
can't
provide.
Oh
sorry,
can't
make
as
much
money
by
providing
liquidity,
because
we
have
let's
say
the
majority
of
the
liquidity
there,
but
we
need
to
stabilize
the
price
at
a
certain
point
without
making
the
price
slippage
too
high.
So
I
think
we
need
somehow
to
move
the
balancer
people,
not
the
unison
people
and
that's
the
long-term
hold
holders.
G
D
I'm
looking
at
the
balances
right
now
from
the
token
contract
and
the
50
50
pool
on
balancer
has
700
dxd
and
the
80
20
has
1600,
but
that
means
that,
in
terms
of
the
eth
liquidity
in
both
those
pools,
they're
pretty
close
right,
I
think
the
50
50
is
just
a
little
bit
under.
So
your
actual,
like
slippage,
I
think,
is
not
that
different
between
the
two
and
I
don't
know
I
haven't
looked
at
like
the
returns
on
each
pool
and.
D
F
I
think
in
terms
of
the
chicken
and
egg
problem
here
they
they
use
it,
like.
The
traders
are
the
more
important,
in
my
opinion,
at
least
from
like
a
little
research
into
it.
F
It
seems
like
the
the
traders
on
uni
swap
are
not
that
price
sensitive,
so
they
they
wouldn't
even
go
to
check
somewhere
else
to
see
if
it's,
if
they
will
get
a
better
deal,
they
just
use
unisport
because
it's
uni
swap,
I
don't
know
because
of
the
plant
because
they
are
used
to
it,
because
so,
if
you
get
those
traders,
somehow
I'm
not
sure
the
way
is
I
like
has
to
be
liquidity
or
more
liquidity
and
because
they
don't
even
check
the
prices
all
the
time.
F
But
if
you
get
them,
then
some
liquidity
has
to
evolve
because
it
will
be
profitable.
There
will
be
fees.
So
I
it's
not
a
solution.
It's
just
an
insight
that
I
think
the
the
traders
themselves
are
more
important
than
the
lps
in
this.
C
C
C
C
D
So
the
sequence
sort
of
matters
here
and
the
only
thing
I
think
we
need
consensus
on
right
now-
is
the
defaults
fee
right.
We
can
delay
the
conversation
about
adding
liquidity
because
for
one
thing
it's
just
not
like
the
it's
going
to
launch
before
we
get
the
relayer
to
add
liquidity,
anyways
right,
so
I
would
say
like
for
now.
Let's
just
focus
on
answering
that
one
question
like:
should
we
leave
the
default
fee
at
0.15
or
should
we
change
it?
A
C
Yeah,
so
I
I
made
a
survey
a
while
back.
I
think
you
guys
might
remember
it.
I
posted
one
of
the
results
in
the
dx
squad
channel
and
it
is
a
very
close.
It's
asking
how,
if,
if
you
were
a
liquidity
provider,
how
would
you
set
your
liquidity,
full
speeds
and
the
highest
was
point
two
percent.
That
was
like
the
winning
choice,
but
very
very
close
behind
was
point
three
percent,
so
it
might
make
sense
to
have
the
default
be
0.25
percent,
just
based
on
like
a
bunch
of
opinions,.
A
Yeah
and
just
to
close
it
up,
though,
because
obviously
the
fees
are
affected
by
the
liquidity
providers,
and
so
even
if
we're
deciding
the
fee,
which
I
think
that's
what
we
need
to
do
like
to
do-
that,
we
first
need
to
like
then
make
the
decision
that,
like
geeks
dao,
is
not
going
to
be
supplying
dxt
liquidity
at
the
current
price,
and
I
think
we
have
consensus
on
that.
A
So
then
that
would
be
the
fee
thing,
but
I
think
that
just
kind
of
does
then
we
need
to
think
a
lot
more
about
how
to
attract
liquidity
to
dx,
swap.
H
Hey
guys,
I
have
a
quick
question
for
you
here,
and
maybe
this
is
a
silly
question
and
swat
it
down
if
it
is,
but
is
the
reason
we
are
setting
a
a
default
fee
for
the
pool
is
still
that
everyone
can
essentially
jump
onto
that
pool
and
have
it
be
kind
of
one
unified
pool,
as
opposed
to
having
multiple
pools
for
the
same
pair
yeah.
We.
A
H
You
just
work,
you
couldn't
design
it
in
a
way
where
you
can
create
your
own
pool
for
whatever
pair
you
want
with
whatever
fee
you
want
and
then
like
as
you're
trading.
It
would
just
use
the
best
the
best
fee
for
you
as
a
trader
depending
upon
how
much
liquidity
you're
trying
to
access,
and
then
it
just
kind
of
goes
down.
H
D
D
E
Or
0.2
or
whatever
so
the
one
thing
is
0.25
is
basically
0.3.
So
it's
like
you
copy
unit
swap
and
you
slightly
change
it
like
point
five
base
point
doesn't
matter,
0.15
is
actually
something
that's
different
and
you'll
see
do
lps
like
it
do
traders
like
it,
does
it
get
all
the
volume
from
aggregators
like,
and
you
actually
can
make
a
decision
based
on
what
happens
with
0.15
like
or
even
like
point
one.
It's
like
something,
that's
quite
a
bit
different.
E
Otherwise
you
just
like,
like
apparently
0.3,
was
like
very
mathematically
chosen
to
like
by
vitalik
and
team
and
other
and
hayden
people,
and
it
like
happens
to
be
like
this
perfect
number
to
like
make
up
for
impermanent
loss
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
but
like
so,
you
can
just
copy
that.
Like
there's,
there's
a
reason,
it's
point
three
percent
or
we
can
do
something
different
and
see
what
happens
the
default.
A
A
E
That
would
be
a
huge
you
can
always
update
like
a
lot
of
individual
ones.
I
mean
it
depends.
G
A
Gotta
I
mean-
I
I
think,
what's
going
with
the
experimentation
is
actually
a
good
point
that
we
don't
really
know
how
that
would
work,
and
I
guess,
if
we're
doing
yeah,
I
think
that's
that's
something
that
we
could
adjust
or
not
or
something.
Maybe
I'm
thinking
specifically
the
dxd
pool
and
not
the
default.
A
A
C
A
For
the
fault,
the
false
sense
of
accuracy
that
it
gives
versus
my
opinion,
when
you
know
I'm
just
you
know,
shooting
off
whatever,
because
that's
what
that's
what
I'm
discussing
and
arguing
with
is
because
you
say
it's
what
lps
want.
I'm
saying
you
may
think:
that's
what
they
want,
but
we
don't
know
that's
what
they
want.
That's
the
whole
reason
we
could
collect.
Yeah
you're
right
say
that,
based
on
the
best,
it's
a
lot.
It's
still
better.
I
don't
think
that's
the
best
data
we
can
collect
either.
D
But
I
would
say
that
this
is
more
of
a
marketing
thing
right,
so,
okay,
the
swap
fee
is
hard-coded,
so
this
is
forever.
E
A
Yeah-
and
I
also
think
things
have
just
changed
so
much
like
in
a
month
six
months-
six
weeks,
just
like
kind
of
the
dynamics
of
how
money
is
moving
around,
I
think
zet
really
has
like
kind
of
the
framing
of
the
goal
is
to
be
like
the
place
where
you
could
buy
the
most
dxd,
and
I
do
by
the
argument
that,
if
we're
yeah,
we
don't
want
to
compete
with
the
dxd,
that's
currently
being
provided.
We
want
to
like
move
it
over.
A
G
So
we
have
one
thing:
we
can't
control
about
this,
which
probably
would
change
the
game.
It's
the
price.
Okay,
if
the
price
was
one
one,
the
xd
one
eth
balancer
pools
would
probably
be
more
willing
to
to
to
come
to
us,
but
right
now
like,
if
you
are
a
long-term
holder
for
dxd,
you
don't
want
to
put.
D
So
I
mean
first
of
all,
it's
a
dxy,
this
disk
style
product,
so
hopefully
you're
aligned
with
the
dx
style
products
right,
but
I
think
it
needs
to
be
beyond
that.
It's
it's
a
carrot
or
a
stick
right,
and
so
the
carrot
could
be
yield.
Farming
of
some
sort
and
the
stick
could
be.
The
dxl
will
step
in,
if
necessary,
with
its
own
treasury
and
then
you
are
competing
like
so.
If
you
don't,
if
you
don't
move
in
favor
of
dx
now,
like
the
dow
itself,
will
like
punish
you
so.
G
Like
how
I
see
it
at
least,
is
for
zolia.
We
are
the
style
product
if
you
want
to
buy
or
trade
dx
now
at
xd,
you
come
to
us
because
yeah
we
have
the
best
liquidity,
but
it
like
from
the
lp's
perspective.
It
doesn't
matter
where
you
go
if
if
the
volume
is
low,
so
if
people
start
trading
dxd
at
the
swap
and
we
get
the
volume,
even
though
let's
say
balancer
still
is
relevant,
it's
probably
gonna
be
relevant
because
of
of
arbitrage.
G
There
might
be
a
lower
price
at
one
of
these
places
and
we
put
like
three
links,
and
one
of
them
is
us
whatever.
If
we
want
to
be
balanced,
but
if
we
could
just
win
that
game
volume
game,
it
would
change
for
the
lps.
It's
not
worth
it
for
them
to
just
keep
their
liquidity
somewhere.
Where
there's
no
trades.
G
G
So
I
think
we
could
win
it,
but
I'm
a
little
bit
like
hesitant
because
to
win
it.
We
need
to
stabilize
the
price
at
this
this
price
right
now.
We
need
to
put
a
lot
of
liquidity
at
this
price
price
point
and
that's
not
positive
from
the
trade
from
the
holder's
view,
because
we
are
basically
making
it
harder
for
the
for
the
market
to
go
up
because
of
added
liquidity.
A
Yeah
yeah
and
that's
why
I
really
do
like
the
it's
like
a
marketing
story
kind
of
for
that,
because
it
is
yeah
because
you're
trying
to
get
people
to
switch
and
kind
of
to
zett's
point
like
we
could
do
that.
We
could
come
in
with
the
big
guns
and
really
make
that
pool,
but
we're
trying
to
like
offer
that
first
to
dxd
holders
dxd
lps
now.
A
So
I
guess
we
do
that
and
then
we
like
just
by
having
if
we
get
them
to
go
over,
that's
enough
or
like
how
else
we
like
driving
volume
or
whatever
I
guess,
yeah.
We
just
create
the
largest
pool
or
incentivize
them
or
carrot.
Stick
them
to
do
that.
Yeah.
G
I
mean
from
from
the
product
side
like
if
we
just
ignore
the
pools
like
dxd
and
pools
or
whatever
just
from
the
product
side.
We
want
to
be
one
of
the
better
swap
services.
That's
that's
like
a
separate
thing,
so
we
have
the
experience
and
all
all
of
the
other
things
and
those
have
nothing
to
do
with
price
and
and
pools.
So
we
are
fighting,
not
one
war,
we're
fighting
different
wars
and
I
think
we
could.
G
I
think,
but
we
need
to
take
one
step
now
and
and
fight
those
other
wars
later
and
like
trust.
The
process
instead
like
have
some
kind
of
roadmap,
otherwise
otherwise
we'll
just
be
afraid
to
take
a
step,
we'll
always
be
like.
Oh,
this
is
not
perfect.
It's
not
good
enough
this,
so
I
would
say
yeah
just.
D
G
So,
if,
if
we
do
that,
this
is
where
I'm
saying
so,
if
we
have
the
best
liquidity,
which
means
the
biggest
liquidity
right.
So
that
means
we.
We
are
losing
another
war
which
is
like.
We
can't
control
what
the
prices
will
be,
but
we
can
actually
control
how
hard
it
takes
like
how
much
volume
it
needs
to
take
to
may
bring
the
price
up
right.
We're
stabilizing
the
price.
At
this
point,
if
we
put
liquidity
right
now,.
D
G
D
Selling
the
dxt
yes,
well,
I
mean,
if
you
put
in
the
order
above
the
market
price,
anybody
who's,
providing
liquidity
on
unit
swap
or
balancer
will
sell
right
and
the
arbitragers
will
make
sure
it
happens.
G
Yeah
I
mean
how
I
see
it.
What
we
could
do
also
is,
first
of
all,
someone
puts
up
liquidity
like
one
of
our
members
or
users
put
up
liquidity
on
dx
swap
set
the
price,
and
then
we
start
the
program
saying
we're
doing
buyback.
We
do
it
in
stages,
let's
say:
oh,
I
I
don't
know
the
stages,
but
so
what
could
happen
is
okay
now
the
volume
is
dry
on
other
places.
G
We
don't
like
people,
not
super
bullish
on
dxd,
but
there's
a
buyback
there's
a
chance
for
people
that
want
to
get
out
to
get
out
now
and
also
there's
an
opportunity
to
to
actually
buy
dxd
and
sell
it
later
for
higher
price,
because
the
buyback
will
push
the
price
higher.
Probably
this
is
not
yeah,
we
can't
guarantee,
but
what
I'm
saying
is
we
could
get
liquidity
providers
to
move
their
liquidity
just
for
the
buyback
also.
D
A
D
D
That's
the
problem
with
doing
yeah
buy
back
in
some
ways.
F
Yeah
for
sure,
if,
if
there's
no
like
real
demand
or
like
arbitrages,
can
always
buy
on
on
the
amm
and
sell
to
them
to
their
arbitrage
on
mesa.
But
there's
this
kind
of
period
where
you
have
where
you
have
like
fair,
fair
chance
for
everyone
to
bid
on
this
opportunity
and
without
needing
to
you
know,
compete
for
gas
prices.
B
D
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
an
argument
to
be
made
that
part
of
the
I
mean
there's
a
couple
of
bearish
things
right
like
one
is
d5
is
bearish
overall
like
if
you
look
at
any
other
t-fight
token
on
coin
gecko,
they're
down
significantly
and
then
the
other
thing
is,
you
know,
some
people
in
the
community
complain
that,
like
dx
swap
hasn't
launched
yet
etc.
So
I
mean,
I
think,
maybe
there
is
an
argument
to
focus
on
shipping
before
doing
a.
D
D
D
G
D
Three
things
I
see
in
telegram
coming
up
over
and
over
again
excuse
me
so,
like
maybe
before
doing
a
buyback,
we
just
focus
on
knocking
those
down.
First
right
like
it's,
we
can
address
the
export
by
shipping
which
we're
already
planning
to
do.
We
can
address
the
the
voting.
Rights
should
be
addressed
by
the
governance
2.0
workshop
and
the
bonding
curve
should
be
addressed
by
the
bonding.
D
Yeah,
but
this
is
not
just
telegram
chris,
like
this,
is
you
know,
100
thread
comment
on
down
talk
about
the
bonding
curve.
This
is
the
price
right.
This
is
people
repeatedly
saying
this
in
telegram
like
how
do
I
vote,
you
know
even
martin
and
vitalik
on
twitter,
complaining
that,
like
there's
no
voting
rights
for
dxd
right
so
like
this
is
not
just
oh,
I
saw
something
on
telegram
over
the
weekend.
This
is
I'm
seeing
this
over
months
right,
like
repeatedly
complained
about
in
several
forums
the
telegram
dow
talk
twitter.
A
I
mean,
I
think,
we're
yeah.
I
mean
I
agree
on
with
all
of
those
comments.
I'm
just
saying.
Like
yeah
I
mean
I,
I
think
that
I
guess
like
I
think
we're
we're
obviously
like
in
a
like
moment
in
the
market
right
now
and
like
those
moments
at
like
the
bottom
of
the
market
like
never
really
feel
good,
it
would
be
nice
to
know
that
maybe
dxd
is
separate.
A
You
know
from
that,
but
so
I
just
want
to
like
make
sure
that
we're
like
making
just
we're
not
making
decisions
like
based
upon
like
the
current
market,
just
on
the
current
market
sentiment.
G
We-
I
I
I
agree
with
you
like
we
should
we
should
have
road
maps
and
long-term
thinking
and
not
get
too
like
attached
to
what
they're
like
the
community
is
saying,
but
we
have
still
like
the
ico
is
still
going
on
really.
So
that's
if
we
did
a
funding
process
and
then
had
a
road
map
and
close
it
down.
That
would
be
a
different
story,
but
we
still
have
that
bonding
curve
open.
D
And
my
point
is
what
yeah
I
mean?
Yes,
the
market
is
doing
what
it's
doing
and
we
can't
really
control
the
macro
picture
right.
But
my
point
is:
if
you
look
at
telegram
there
are
people
complaining
about
things
and
nobody's
answering
them
right?
Why
is
that?
Why
isn't
there's
two
thousand
people
on
telegram?
Why
is
nobody
answering
this
question?
That's
right
now,
the
top
last
question
on
telegram
that
to
me
is
a
failure
of
communications,
a
glaring
failure
by
dxnow
to
do
like
good
communications
and
that
this
is
the
biz
dev
call.
D
D
D
E
E
E
Let's
we're
not
going
to
have
tons
of
pairs
right
like
in
dxd
and
strategic
pairs.
We
want
low
fees,
we
can
manually,
move
them
lower
from
2.25
down
and
we
can
move
them
up.
Maybe
we're
moving
to
0.5,
but
like
we
can
move
these
fees
around
so
0.25,
which
is
basically
0.3,
seems
fine.
Unless
anyone
really
doesn't
like
that,
0.25
seems
good.