►
From YouTube: SWPR emissions and tokenomics 2022-08-10
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).
A
Yep
cool-
yes
I'll,
just
read
from
this
because
I
wrote
it
a
little
bit
last
night,
but
the
initial
liquidity
release
window
for
swapper
token
is
coming
to
its
one
year.
Conclusion
september,
15th
and
29th
for
arbitrary
and
gnosis
chain
respectively
there'll
be
no
further
swapper
allocated
towards
emissions
in
the
dx.liquidity
campaigns.
There
is
a
non-zero
amount
of
swap
remaining
in
the
unallocated
fund
that
we
can
use
to
defer
this
discussion
maybe
push
forward
a
month.
A
I
have
to
do
the
calculations
on
exactly
what
that
looks
like
and
how
long
we
could
facilitate
it.
Hypothetically,
we
could
do
like
half
while
we're
having
these
discussions
and
or
if
we
need
development
time,
and
I
do
think
that
we
should
have
a
full
campaign
available
for
the
odyssey
event
at
the
very
minimum,
but
yeah
this
group's
being
established
to
discuss
potential
options
and
start
the
work
now
towards
solutions.
You
know
time
is
starting
to
slip
away.
A
Obviously
pretty
close
already
here
and
we've
had
a
whole
bunch
of
ideas
flying
over
the
last
couple
of
months.
So
the
first
option
is,
I
guess,
was
the
simplest
one,
but
there
is
an
easier
one
below
deploy
an
additional
year
of
rewards
from
the
dxdot
treasury
benefits.
Easy
simple
moves,
the
goal
post
back
for
further
discussion
on
the
future
of
the
swapper
token.
The
risk
is
that
dx
that
would
tap
into
its
50
allocation.
That
was
previously
discussed,
something
at
a
contract
level.
A
You
know
software
governance
might
need
to
control
or
have
joint
control
with
the
excel
over,
to
impose
that
50
ownership
may
be
needed
just
to
stay
true
to
previous
obligations
or
a
future
discussion
on
like
what
that
looks
like
in
the
timeline.
Obviously
near
none,
simple
governance
proposal,
definitely
not
the
most
interesting
option,
but
it
is
an
option
if
we
wanted
to
discuss
that
in
the
community
and
kind
of
tap
into
those
that
50
allocation,
that
dx
dow
has
feel
free
to
come
off
anytime.
A
If
there's
any
comments,
questions
otherwise
I'll
just
run
through
kind
of
this,
and
then
we
can
talk
to
each
individually,
maybe
option
two:
is
the
swip
swap
swapper
model,
which
is
kind
of
fun
to
say
it's?
The
model
that
was
put
together
by
crypto
twilight
for
the
codeless
conduct
hackathon.
It
has
a
whole
paper.
The
only
thing
that
there
is
to
say
about
this
is
that
it
does
not
solve
emissions
and
they're
they're,
very
clear,
not
in
scope.
It's
it's
somewhere
in
here,
but
they
say
it
doesn't
solve
a
mission.
A
So
this
would
basically
be
us
working
towards
this
kind
of
ve
token
model.
You
know
it
has
an
increase
in
governance.
Participation,
supply
locks,
all
the
fun
parts
about
the
ve
model.
A
I
like
the
idea,
there's
an
idea
in
here
about
reducing
the
excess
ownership
position
gradually
by
granting
them
governance
rights,
they're,
calling
it
let's
see
here:
veb
swapper,
a
special
token
awarded
dx
dao
in
exchange
for
staking
its
current
share
of
protocol
issued
swapper
supply,
non-redeemable
non-tradable,
non-transferable
grants
voting
power
and
gradually
diminishes
over
time
and
then
eventually
redeemable
for
five
percent
of
total
issued
supply.
I
really
like
that
concept,
but
I
think
that
swapper,
the
supply
you
know
has
has
value.
A
Obviously,
swappers
never
done
a
raise
or
raise
its
own
money,
and
if
it's
going
to
kind
of
bleed
out
one
of
its
main
participants,
there
needs
to
be
a
strategy
for
why
and
how
to
return
value
to
dxtau.
A
So
I
don't
know
if
I
necessarily
like
that
specific
position,
at
least
in
its
current
state
and
also,
of
course,
doesn't
solve
emissions.
You
need
a
separate
discussion
to
kind
of
rectify
how
exactly
we'd
still
do
emissions
and
deal
with
that
with
the
token
supply
for
the
timeline,
presumably
a
fork
of
the
ve
and
transition
of
swapper.
A
To
the
updated
token,
just
the
token,
though,
and
maybe
like
the
governance
side
would
come
later,
so
it
should
be
a
lower
time
sink,
which
kind
of
leads
me
to
option
three,
which
is
the
most
interesting
one
to
me
and
was
kind
of
something
I've
been
thinking
about.
But
venky
really
brought
it
to
my
attention,
and
I
did
a
big
long
read
on
the
weekend
on
what
exactly
is
going
on
with
velodrome,
but
a
velodrome
fork.
A
It's
basically
a
novel
interpretation
of
the
ve
33
tokenomics,
combining
concepts
and
curves
solidly
and
vodium.
I
kind
of
note
here
curve
with
this
low
slippage
and
feed
trades.
A
Alongside
of
similar
vote,
escrow
gauge
system
delegating
token
emissions,
so
you
know
people
voting
on
where
exactly
the
emissions
will
go
through
their
say,
swapper
token,
in
our
case
solidly,
because
the
gate
voting
affects
fees
instead
of
passive
liquidity
and
then
vodium
for
the
bribe
system,
allowing
anyone
to
stake
tokens
for
liquidity,
pool
of
their
choice.
It's
kind
of
a
combination
of
those
three
concepts
has
been
seemingly
very
interesting.
So
far.
I've
done
a
lot
of
reading
and
kind
of
played
around
with
theodrome
a
little
bit.
A
I
wish
we
had
venki
here
to
kind
of
speak
to
it,
but
the
risks
and
considerations,
of
course,
solidly
the
phantom
ecosystem
kind
of
collapsed
in
a
nasty
death
spiral
and
I
think
solidly
kind
of
failed
before
phantom,
so
tail
risk
of
that
may
still
exist.
If
I'm
understanding
the
tokenomics
correctly,
they
aim
to
solve
that
with
kind
of
the
vodium
aspect
of
this.
A
You
know
a
fairly
simple
implementation
of
multi-chain
governance
functionality,
much
a
challenge.
Of
course.
They
are
currently
optimism
only
for
obvious
reasons
of
the
way
that
the
tokens
work
with
each
other.
So
it's
going
to
be
a
challenge
that
needs
to
be
solved
as
a
multi-chain
protocol.
I
think
if
we
wanted
to
make
take
this
route,
there
are
other
protocols
that
have
kind
of
solved
that
issue
of
like
having
tokenomics
that
work
with
themselves
and
then
bridging
it
to
multiple
chains.
A
Ohm
comes
to
mind,
luckily
john's
not
here,
to
make
fun
of
me,
but
om
has
like
a
wrapper
where
you
wrap
your
own,
that
would
normally
be
being
depreciated
and
instead
turns
it
to
governance
on
which
automatically
tracks
an
index.
So
maybe
something
like
that,
but
that
of
course,
is
a
pretty
high
timeline
resource
sync,
I
would
say
so.
A
I
say
here:
forking
velodrome
should
be
relatively
easy,
but
may
take
a
lot
of
work
on
our
front
end
and,
of
course,
we'd
be
on
a
we'd,
be
forking
the
underlying
amm
contracts.
There's
gonna
be
discussions
on.
You
know
translating
liquidity
from
old
contracts
and
new
contracts.
If
we
chose
to
do
this
process
and
then
of
course
the
token
as
well
we'd
have
to
do
a
conversion
process,
we
do
have,
of
course,
modals
and
and
stuff
directly
in
adapt
for
a
conversion.
I
don't
think
that
will
be
necessarily
challenging.
A
B
Probably,
and
definitely
the
longest,
this
velodrome,
like
the
whole
point
of
curve
and
velodrome,
is
like
these
live
bribing,
gauges
and
stuff,
or
deciding
on
like
where
to
drive
money
like
what
pools
to
like
drive
money
towards
right.
B
The
the
big
issue
I
see
with
a
bunch
of
these
things
of
like
dx
doubt
even
considering
turning
over
swapper
to
swapper
token
holders
like
creating
a
whole
system
for
stakers
to
to
decide
where
to
direct
swapper
token.
The
whole
problem
with
all
this
is
that
swapper
token
is
not
worth
anything
basically.
So
we're.
B
It's
not
safe
to
give
swapper
to
swapper
token
holders.
It's
not.
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
like
build
a
whole
system
to
decide
where
to
drive
to
where
to
allocate
swapper
token,
because
swapper
tokens
aren't
worth
anything
in
in
actual
real
dollar
terms,
and
so
it's
almost
like
we
like
this
is
we're
doing
like
an
experiment
for
like
if
we
had
a
giant
protocol
with
tons
of
money
in
it
and
a
native
and
a
token
that
goes
with
that.
B
What
would
we
do,
but,
like
we're
doing
all
these
decisions
on
a
system
where,
like
the
financial
value,
is
so
small
that
it
doesn't
actually
react?
The
market
doesn't
react
to
any
of
the
of
the
changes
we're
making,
because
there's
not
enough
value
in
it
to
get
anyone's
attention.
Basically,
that
that's
my
main
concern
with
like
where
the
current
state
of
swapper
token
is
it's.
It's
like
look
at
xcom
on
honeyswap
like.
B
B
But
like
for,
like
even
the
basic
thing
is,
can
we
give
governance
of
swapper
to
swapper
token
holders
with
the
cap
of
swapper
token?
No.
A
I
think
that's
the
long-term
goal
and
I
think
that
this
can
be
implemented
solely
giving
like
direction
of
emissions
so,
like
the
the
holders,
wouldn't
necessarily
be
voting
to
do
more
emissions.
Anything
natively,
maybe
there's
some
kind
of
signal
proposal
that
we
currently
have
that
could
affect
that,
but
it's
solely
the
the
direction
of
a
mission.
So
if
we
translate
this
model,
we
put
towards
like
an
emission
plan
similar
to
what
we
had
with
our
current
epochs.
A
A
I
don't
see
it
in
in
a
dollar
term.
I
see
it
more
as
a
quantity
of
swapper
term.
I
think
you
know
there
is
a
certain
amount
of
swapper
and,
depending
on
how
much
swapper
you
have,
you
can
point
it,
of
course,
as
dollars
associated
with
that.
But
then
it's
like
okay,
whoever
has
the
swapper,
can
point
it
to
the
you
know
the
pools
that
they
want
and
if
people
aren't
happy
they're,
not
gonna.
B
See
it
they're,
not
gonna,
no
one's
gonna
do
that
because
it's
not
worth
anything.
My
whole
point
is:
if
it's
not
worth
dollars,
no
one's
going
to
spend
time
and
dollars
on
on
directing
something
that's
not
worth
dollars
like
we've
done
that
I
don't
think
so,
distributing
the
governance
token,
so
we've
put
time
into
it,
but
why?
Why
would
people
direct
something?
That's
not
worth
anything.
D
E
E
Space
is
like
making
things
worth
something
and
then
building
like
surrounding
that,
but
I
I
mean
I
would
say
I
don't
necessarily
think
a
token
model
is
going
to
be
the
product
itself,
and
so
maybe
there
has
to
be
like
another
reason
that
there
are
there's
volume
and
activity
and
then
a
token
model
like
this
could
could
help.
But
like
yeah,
I
guess,
how
would
this
attract
additional
liquidity?
Is
my
question.
A
Yeah,
so
basically
the
idea
of
us
thinking
you
know
lps
are
the
best
to
decide.
You
know
what
their
fee
should
be
in
their
pools
in
this
system.
It's
basically
saying
those
liquidity
providers
are
the
best
to
decide
where
the
concentration
of
liquidity
should
be
so
basically
through
the
low
slippage
trades,
and
these
are
different
contracts
than
univ2.
A
If
I'm
understanding
correctly,
but
those
that
are
staking
their
lp
positions
are
able
to
point
rewards
and
that
becomes
of
course
fighting
for
a
share
of
the
pie
kind
of
dynamic.
Will
it
increase
liquidity?
Maybe
maybe
it
won't?
I
mean,
if
all
of
the
swapper
tokens
pointing
rewards
to
tokens
that
aren't
necessarily
our
largest
pools.
Maybe
those
holders
aren't
happy,
they
point
their
swapper.
I
think
it's
it's
very
aligned
with
their
governance,
correction,
lockers
and
secrets.
Yes,
thank
you
adam.
A
Yeah,
I
guess
that's
some
some
entry
level
thoughts,
I'm
not
necessarily
the
biggest
proponent
of
this.
I
wanted
to
kind
of
bring
it
to
discussion.
I
think
it's
very
interesting
a
lot
of
things
to
kind
of
look
into
before
committing
to
it
and,
of
course,
wish
venky
was
here
to
share
his
thoughts.
F
I
think
sky.
The
token
is
not
necessarily
worth
nothing,
because
there
is
a
constant
cell
pressure
on
it,
because
the
more
token
you
lock
the
more
voting
power
you
have
and
the
more
fees
you're
going
to
get.
So
the
idea
is
that
the
native
token
of
the
protocol
is
going
to
be
used,
like
they
a
class
a
sure.
F
But
then
the
rewards
don't
come
in
the
native
token.
They
come
in
the
bribes,
for
example,
I
use
veldrum
and
I'm
trying
to
get
as
much
as
op
token,
because
I'm
bullish
on
opi,
for
example,
but
not,
but
when
I
get
my
native
token
and
the
staking
contracts
from
the
for
example,
velodrome,
I
go
and
lock
that
so
I
get
more
of
the
secondary
market
token.
F
But
this
whole
idea
is
that
I
don't
believe
it's
going
to
work
for
swapper,
necessarily
because
swapper
is
like
an
mm
where
veldrum
is
trying
to
do
an
amm,
but
it
has
to
be
like
a
deep
liquidity
mm.
So
they
want
to
drive
all
of
the
liquid
all
of
the
volume
to
their
protocol.
So
they're
trying
to
compete
with
both
curve
and
probably
potentially
uniswap
itself,.
B
So
adam
says:
are
you
is
what
you're
saying
so
like?
If
now
I
don't
know
if
they're
gonna
do
this,
but
if,
if
gnosis
or
karpaki,
wants
to
put
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
of
gno
towards
swapper
pools
each
each
month
and
the
people
that
are
going
to
get
to
decide
where
that
gno
goes
is
swapper
token
holders.
B
Yeah
a
lot
lockers,
swapper,
swapper
lockers
but
like
karpaki,
is
gonna
put
gno
like
specific
to
pools.
So
maybe
they
can
like
if
real.
If
we
put
dxd
rewards
or
you
know,
other
real
money
or
gno
or
cow
tokens,
rewards
and
then
swapper
lockers
get
to
decide
where
this
goes.
B
Yeah,
but
I
guess
what
I'm
asking
is
like
if
swapper
lockers
actually
get
to
decide
where
to
allocate
real
money,
not
just
governance
swap
or
token,
but
like
someone's,
committing
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
of
gno
a
month
and
swapper
token
lockers,
so
they're
actually
like
gno,
is
coming
into
like
this
pool
of
money
that
gets
to
be
allocated,
but
that's
a
gift
by
them.
It's
not
from
the
protocol.
It's
this
is
normally
from
the
curve
protocol
or
from
the
velodrome
protocol.
B
F
E
B
F
B
Yeah
and
our
problem
is
the
missions
aren't
worth
dollars
and,
if
they're
not
worth
really
any
dollars
so
like
the
interesting
thing
is
well,
what
pools
is
gno
in
that's
true?
Yes,
but
that,
but
then
the
gno
is
not
going
to
do
any
bribing,
because
they're
just
going
to
decide
where
the,
where
the
gno,
what
pulls
those
are
in
true
yeah.
A
Yeah,
I
really
do
wish
venky
was
here.
Maybe
we
can
have
a
a
separate
discussion
with
him,
we'll
quickly
kind
of
recap,
this
this
last
option
nothing
the
fun
little
tumbleweed.
It
kind
of
lets
us
step
back,
reassess.
You
know
the
aspects
of
swapper
and
governance
utility
emissions
of
the
token
not
rushing
at
anything
that
could
have
long-term
consequences,
but
on
the
wrist
side,
momentum
is
a
serious
key
factor
to
me.
A
If
we
totally
remove
emissions,
we
could
have
partners
seeking
outside
relationships
could
result
in
permanent
translation
of
liquidity
from
swapper
contracts,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
especially
even
like
a
small
point
from
you
know,
even
just
like
sushi
or
something
would
be
enough.
Probably,
but
as
you
know,
the
timeline,
probably
the
healthier,
you
know,
don't
have
to
do
anything
so.
B
E
B
Well,
like
yeah,
I
mean
that's
the
only
thing
that
okay,
we're
still
giving
out
swapper
token
we're
trying
to
like
right
now
we're
just
trying
to
get
governance
of
swapper
token
in
the
hands
of
people.
That
would
be
good
governors,
that's
the
distribution
we're
doing
but
like
how
do
we
now
we
need
to
do
things
focused
on
getting
swamper
token
price
and
higher
in
order
to
be
then,
do
these
other
things
basically.
B
E
Yeah,
I
think,
just
like
my
guess,
my
broad
thoughts
are
here.
There
are
ev,
you
know
every
exchange,
not
just
decentralized
exchanges
right,
it's
all
about
who
is
going
to
be
trading.
Who
do
you
have
bringing
liquidity
and
who
is
going
to
be
like
yeah
using
as
much
and
so
there's
users
right
that
are
coming
to
the
front
end
that
I
think
are
really
important
for
trading.
E
We
can
talk
about
how
we
can
try
to
increase
that,
but
by
and
large,
the
way
you
generate
fees
is
by
attracting
liquidity,
and
so
I
think
we
should
be
thinking
ultimately
like
how
do
we
attract
liquidity
and
yeah?
I
guess
to
put
some
of
my
cards
on
the
table:
I'm
pretty
skeptical
that
token
emissions
can
actually
attract
liquidity
and
whether
that
can
actually
attract
liquidity
in
the
long
term,
even
like
these
new
models
that
you
kind
of
the
velodrome
won.
I
think,
though,
like
I
think
especially
the
curve
one.
E
The
curve
was
already
the
number
one
spot
to
swap
stable
coins
before
they
even
launched
governance
like
they
were
around
like
a
year
before
that,
and
they
had
already
really
gathered
that
whole
market
share.
So
it
made
sense.
E
They
already
had
a
valuable
thing
which
was
access
to
these
pools
that
they
could
then
like
kind
of
introduce
the
bribe
system
for
and
if
you
look
at
swapper
liquidity
right
now,
I'm
just
kind
of
doing
like
some
numbers,
there's
13.7
million
dollars
in
liquidity
in
there
about
five
million
a
little
less
than
five
million
dollars
of
that
is
deex
dao's
and
then
not
sure.
If
I
have
all
their
addresses,
but
kaparki
also
has
about
five
million.
I
think
a
little
less
than
that.
E
So
that's,
like
you
know
eighty
percent
of
swapper's
tv
out
right
there,
and
that
is
I
don't
know
if
koparky
is
doing
it
to
farm
swapper
or
the
token
emissions.
But
I
know
like
geeks
dao
is
not
doing
it
to
to
farm
swapper
emissions.
So
I
think,
if
you
look
at
liquidity
and
what
is
driving
liquidity
to
d
says
swapper,
it
is
not
the
swapper
token
and
I
don't
think
that's
like
bad
for
right
now,
that's
not
a
big
deal.
E
I
just
think
the
liquidity
strategy
for
swapper
should
not
really
revolve
around
the
token.
I
think
that
the
liquidity
strategy
should
revolve
around
like
two
things:
one
dx,
dow
and
two
partners
right,
and
I
think,
if
you
look
at
the
best
pools,
we
have
right
yeah.
I
guess
so
just
take
a
step
back
again.
So
there's
like
the
80
percent,
that's
geek
style
or
kaparki,
and
then
you
have
dxd
eth,
which
is
like
another
like
four
or
five
percent
on
the
different
ones.
E
So,
of
course,
like
d
style
has
that
and
then
there
are
a
couple
pools
that
are
more
partner
pools,
I'm
thinking
like
the
the
house,
one,
the
pnk
one,
those,
and
so
I
think
we
want
to
still
be
able
to
go
after
partner
pools,
and
I
see
no
problem
with
like
using
swapper
tokens
as
a
ways
to
attract
partner
pools.
I
just
don't
know
if
it
makes
sense
to
have
like
widespread
swapper
emissions
on
some
of
the
larger
pools
that
we
have
and
trying
to
incentivize
liquidity
to
come
over
there.
E
I
think
it's
going
to
just
be
in
general,
very
very
difficult
to
get
liquidity
on
the
swapper.
As
long
as
it
is,
you
know
just
a
uniform
v2
fork,
so
I
think
for
me
right
now.
E
I
think,
like
swapper
talk
about
the
price
of
swapper
going
up
like
well
we're
issuing
like
a
lot
of
swapper
every
month
right
all
of
this
distribution
of
swapper,
not
all
of
it
is
being
sold,
but
a
lot
of
it
is
being
sold
and
so,
like,
I
think,
limiting
some
of
the
cell
pressure
would
be
one
way
to
support
the
price
and
then
yeah.
I
would
definitely
be
in
favor
of
taking
the
fees
from
swapper
and
using
it
to
buyback
swapper
in
the
open
on
the
open
market.
We
have
the
fee
receiver.
E
We
could
figure
out
how
to
do
that,
but
I
think
I
think,
like
things
like
that
and
then
figuring
out
how
to
get
more
like
geek
style,
liquidity
and
involved,
I
think,
would
be
a
good
step
forward
and
then
I
think
for
swapper
governance.
It
makes
sense.
I
would
love
to
have
swapper
governance,
be
taking
a
larger
role
of
this,
and
I
think
maybe
even
part
of
this
transition
could
be
well
what
if
dxdow
gives
or
not
gives.
E
I
guess
releases
some
of
the
swapper
token
that
the
swapper
guild
was
allocated
in
the
original
token
launch
and
then,
like
swapper
kind
of
uses,
that
to
to
do
certain
things
or
maybe
dxdow
gives
some
of
its
other
allocation
to
the
swapper
guild,
just
to
kind
of
like
get
things
started
and
try
to
like
create
a
community
there.
But
I
am
yeah.
I
guess
I'm
skeptical,
that
a
token
model
will
drive
liquidity
in
the
short
term
short
and
medium
term.
A
Cool,
thank
you
chris
curious
zett,
since
we
have
you,
I
wanna
know
if
you
have
any
thoughts
kind
of
broadly
on
this
topic,.
G
G
Maybe
people
won't
put
any
effort
into
something
that
is
not
valued
much,
but
I
think
by
starting
to
lock
up
new
emissions
into
into
if
we
start
like
lowering
the
cell
pressure
and
also
obviously
we're
working
on
the
product
to
give
it
more
value
and
work
on
governance,
a
bunch
of
stuff,
I
don't
think
we
should
look
at
the
current
price
and
say
hey.
Why
would
people
care
about
locking
up
this
or
that?
G
G
So
if
we
believe
in
in
the
product
and
the
and
what
we're
doing,
I
think
we
should
do,
we
should
push
for
like
a
ve
to
economics
model.
I
don't
know
which
one
like
this
velodrome
thing.
I
have
no
idea
how
it
works,
and
also
we
don't
know
if
this
works
long
term
right,
but
at
least
it
might
work
better
than
what
what
we're
doing
right
now.
G
B
G
I
would
say
I
would
say
it's
if,
if
you
create
the
protocol
from
like
scratch
today,
I
think
would
be
different.
I
would
I
would
I
I
would
say,
like
this:
tokenomics
we
have
now
is
made
for
lps
right.
It's
90
for
lps,
we
give
rewards
to
lps,
like
lps,
do
make
much
more
than
the
protocols
in
these
scenarios
we
we've
seen
the
lp's
dozen
like
they
don't
stick
right,
so
maybe
we
should
try
to
not
reward
lps
as
much.
E
E
G
So
if
let's
say
we
don't
have
a
token,
let's
say
we
never
made
the
swapper
token
right,
so
one
strategy
without
the
token
to
attract
liquidity.
I
already
talked
about
this
earlier,
which
I
think
we
need
to
change
the
core
contracts
for
is
to
enable
a
new
fee
that
could
give
be
given
to
the
project
itself.
G
So
as
an
example,
cow
protocol
doesn't
have
their
own
liquidity
or,
let's
say
any
other,
like
big
d5
protocol
out
there
that
doesn't
have
an
amm
if
they
want
their
token
to
be
traded,
they
might
get
a
fee
share.
There's
no
amm
out
there
doing
this
like
open
c
and
all
of
these
nft
platforms
and
marketplaces
all
have
features.
G
E
G
So
if
let's
say
sushi
swap
introduces
fee
sharing,
don't
you
think
everyone
that
is
randomly
putting
up
liquidity
on
uniswap
with
no
purpose
but
but
like?
Obviously,
the
purpose
is
unisop
is
the
biggest
one.
And
everyone
knows
it
right.
If
sushi
swap
activates
a
project
fee
where
the
project
itself
gets
a
fee,
you
don't
think
all
the
projects
would
push
their
users
and
their
their
liquidity
providers
to
put
liquidity
on
sushi
swap.
E
G
G
E
You're
suggesting
is
that
even
what
you're
suggesting
is
a
way
of
encouraging
lps
to
then
come
to
swapper
you're
saying
the
projects
will
start
it,
and
then
the
liquidity
will
come.
But
ultimately,
this
is
always
about
liquidity
and
liquidity.
Assets
are
going
to
go
where
they
can
get
the
most
fees
and
that's
going
to
be
where
there's
the
most
volume
and
like
the
only
way
you
have
that
again,
I
think,
is
through
like
financial
innovation.
G
I
I
think
clearly
I
mean
there
is
there's
been,
I
think,
there's
been
some
innovations
and
and
clearly
people
will
put
up
their
lp
where
the
volume
is
right,
because
this
is
where,
even
if
there's
higher
percentage
fee
going
to
an
lp,
if
there's
no
volume,
they
will
not
go
there
right.
G
I
I
think
just
the
sticky
liquidity
argument
is
important
and
if
you
want
to
move
there,
I
think
we
need
to
think
less
about
the
lp.
I
know
it
sounds
crazy,
but
I
don't
see
anyone
else
solving
this.
So
until
someone
solved
it,
I
think
it's
it's
fair
to
try
another
strategy.
E
E
E
E
E
Like
I
guess,
there's
a
couple
times
that
people
haven't
responded
like,
I
feel
like
the
approach
is
like
deep
style
liquidity
and
just
like
that's
fine.
For
now,
while
we
build
up
more,
I'm
just
like
not
sure
if
it's
very
fruitful
to
go
out
and
attract
other
liquidity,
because
it's
just
like
hard
to
do.
G
G
All
of
these
mms
mms
are
doing
they're
playing
the
same
game
if
we
move
away
from
the
lp
game
and
start
thinking
about,
in
my
opinion,
a
good
way
to
attract
projects
first
and
then
lps.
I
think
that
could
be
a
legit
strategy.
I'm
not
saying
every
project
will
move
over.
I
think
legit
projects
like
harper
and
and
and
car
protocol
would
be
interested
like
hey.
Swapper
is
doing
this
I'd.
G
E
G
I
would
say
if,
if
there
is
no
official
liquidity
anywhere
and
a
project
is
new
or
they
will
launch
a
token
or
or
they
just
want
to
move
liquidity
anywhere,
an
argument
to
move
liquidity
to
swapper
would
be
fisher.
I
I
see
no
other
other
amem
offering
this
yeah.
E
G
E
C
I
I'm
trying
to
visualize,
I
almost
think
there's
a
disconnect
between
u2
somewhere,
I
think
unrelated
to
it.
It's
like,
like
there
isn't.
A
A
I
would
see
that
as
a
positive
value
statement
personally,
maybe
not
for
a
full
liquidity
translation
as
long
as
swapper
has
relatively
low
volume,
but
for
like
a
new
project
and
you're
pointing
liquidity
somewhere.
I
don't
see
why
it
would
be.
You
know
a
negative
thing.
E
People
are
looking
for
other
ways
to
to
get
out
of
that
yeah,
and
I
just
think
it's
like
hard
to
attract
liquidity
in
this
space,
and
I
think
we
should
be
much
more
focused
on
using
geek
styles
own
liquidity
to
allow
us
to-
and
I
think
I
completely
agree
like
these
are
like
we
want
to
go
after
these
projects
whenever
I
have
to
get
early
ones
on
but
like
it's
like.
D
B
Yeah,
I
mean
that's
an
example
like
if
there
were
lots,
more
projects
that
were
like
that's
the
example
of
what
we
just
always
talked
about
like
we
have
a
line.
We
have.
Alignment
of.
You
know
ethos
with
them.
They're
like
using
swapper.
Okay,
it's
not
their
main
pool,
but
it's
like
they're
putting
it
there
but
yeah.
If
unit
swap
v3
comes
and
then
that's
on
osu's
chain,
and
then
they
decide
it
doesn't
matter
that
we're
aligned
with
dx,
dow
and
swapper
we're
going
to
move
it
over
to
unit
swap
v3.
G
Yeah
yeah,
but
it's
still
like
I
I
would
say
we
would
have
seen
this
happen.
If,
if
there
would
be
hundreds,
I
think
yeah
in
five
years,
there'll
be
hundreds
yeah.
G
We
we
have
a
revenue
problem
today
right
and
we
have
a
price
problem
today.
I'm
not
saying:
let's
do
something
short
term,
I'm
just
saying
what
can
we
do
like?
I
think
we
need
to
change
something
from
what
we're
doing
now
right.
We
saw
how
on
our
bedroom,
everything
was
super
nice
at
the
beginning,
when
we
had
high
incentives
and
then,
as
soon
as
the
incentives
went
down
and
like
it
was
100
correlated
to
the
incentives,
all
the
big
waves
just
went
out
immediately.
So
so
I
think
what
we're
doing
now.
G
We
all
agree,
it's
not
working.
So
what
can
we
do
now
like?
Instead
of
starting
the
new
emissions
with
the
same
stuff?
And
we
know
it's
not
working
I'd
rather
like
pause
and
and
change.
G
G
What
about
creating
a
new
amm
with
these
crazy
ideas
of
having
the
velodrome
the
and
maybe
the
like,
the
let's
say
the
project
fee
right?
You
created
it's
still
owned
by
swapper,
but
it's
another
another
amm
and
see
how
it
goes
like
have
it
have
as
an
experimental
mm
where
we
try
stuff
that
is
totally
different
from
from
plan
of
swapper.
G
A
G
B
E
E
Yeah,
no,
I
mean
I
sky.
I
think
this
is
like
a
strategy
we
should
consider.
I
do
think
uniswop
would
come
after
someone.
I
know
we
don't
like
paulus,
I'm
not
sure
they
would
like
win
that,
but
I
definitely.
What
can
we
use.
B
E
The
way
this
is
like
you
know,
like
everything's,
gonna
fall
down
like
this
is
all
the
incentive
time
period
right.
This
one
like
people
are
starting
their
own
car
sharing
pump
company,
and
if
you
put
some
incentives,
you
can
get
some
network
effect
and
like
be
able
to
like
run
for
a
little
bit,
but
then
you
end
up
seeing
like
what
is
actually
the
most
efficient
system.
Ultimately
and
yeah
I
mean
I
think
there
are
a
couple
competitors
for
this.
Now
I
mean
v,
you
just
have
v3
curve
v2.
E
I
thought
balancer
was
a
little
bit
more
interesting,
but,
like
those
are
going
to
be
the
back
ends-
and
I
don't
really
think
there's
in
two
years,
three
or
five
years
to
use
that
example,
I
don't
think
there's
going
to
be
that
much
new
flows.
Of
course,
there
will
always
be
capital
left
in
these.
These
older
dexes,
but
I'll
still
be
new
flows
into
those,
and
I
really
think
we
shouldn't
be
focused
on
the
short
term
trying
to
get
token
up
trying
to
do
that.
It's
just
like.
E
D
E
Yield
and
talk
about
revenue
like
getting
revenue
from
the
treasury
is
another
way
to
do
that,
and
so,
like.
I
think
these
ideas
in
experimentation
are
interesting
but,
like
I
ultimately
think
the
bigger
battlefield
is
figuring
out
how
something
we
can
get
something
on
the
back
end
and
then
also
getting
two
things
in
liquid.
The
two
types,
two
sources
of
liquidity
into
that
and
that
sticks
to
liquidity
and
project
liquidity.
F
Or
maybe
I
have
a
hot
take
like
right
now,
like
any
swap
and
other
breaker
projects
have
established
themselves
as
the
biggest
liquidity
provider
or
liquidity.
F
The
competition
is
gonna,
move
further
and
further
away
from
the
protocol
design
to
the
to
the
account
abstraction
and
then
the
mobile
wallets,
for
example
like
right
now,
people
don't
care
about
like
installing
a
meta
mask
and
then
getting
a
custom
rpc
installed
et
cetera,
then
going
to
uni
dealing
with
all
the
bad
ux
in
the
next
three
years.
I
believe,
like
competition
is
going
to
be
dictated
by
mobile
laws.
Mobile
wells,
for
example,
like
argent,
is
currently
like
when
you
want
to
trade
on
arjun
you're
gonna
be
locked
with
like
two
options.
F
You
have
either
unison,
v3
or
unison
b2,
depending
on
how
much
you're
going
to
trade,
but
then
for
liquidity
provisioning.
You
only
have
like
obvious.
So
if,
if,
if
the
theory
is
that
mobile
walls
are
going
to
be
the
the
first
and
foremost
front
end
for
d5,
you
want
to
go
on
that
front,
and
then
you
want
to
make
sure
that
your
wallet
is
going
to
be
using
the
protocol.
You
want
to
use.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I
agree,
I
think
there's
two
like
there's
two
parts
of
this
market
right,
there's
like
the
trader
coming
in
and
how
you
can
own
that
trader
who's
driving
all
that
flow,
because
that's
where
everything
starts
from
right.
That's
why
metamask
can
charge
point
eight
percent
on
a
swap
because
they
have
so
many
users
there
and
it's
a
really
really
powerful
place
to
be.
It's
also.
E
The
same
reason
uniswap
is
like
actually
good,
because
so
much
of
their
flow
is
coming
from
people
just
going
to
uniswap.org
right,
but
people
trust
that
that's
immediately
where
they
go
not
even
like
even
outside
the
the
aggregators
themselves,
and
of
course
this
is
also
why
uniswap
has
just
did
they
purchased
like
a
mobile
wallet
or
they
like
some
nft
group.
E
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
but
they're
clearly
like
thinking
about
this
in
general,
so
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
where
actually
g
style
is
like
a
head
in
terms
of
like
looking
at
the
front
end,
because
that's
the
whole
strategy
on
the
front
end
is
like
wanting
to
be
able
to
capture
as
many
of
those
like
initial
users
as
possible.
So
maybe
there's
an
additional
front-end
strategy
that
is
about
making
like
going
in
the
mobile
wallet
area
and
that's
probably
through
integrations
and
partnerships.
But
I
definitely
agree.
E
Anyone
wants
to
do
a
trade
through
any
aggregator
or
anything
or
any
arbitrage
bot
is
in
there
like
they're,
going
to
go
in
and
be
dipping
into
that
pool
because
you
have
like
the
biggest
liquidity.
So
I
think
you
want
to
try
to
like
yeah,
have
moats
votes
on
on
both
sides
and
that's
why
I
think,
like
geek
style,
liquidity
is,
of
course,
the
ultimate
mode,
because
deek
style
is
not
going
to.
D
E
Liquidity
for
for
something
else,
and
then
it's
like
attracting
other
modes
on
the
liquidity
side,
while
yeah
I'm
still,
I
think
we
should
be
focusing
on
the
front
end.
There's
like
a
lot
of
really
important
things
there
as
things
also
transition
to
mobile,
like
that,
still
needs
to
be
there
but
yeah.
I
think
separate
from
from
the
smart
contract
level.
A
A
So
I
think,
probably
a
good
time
now
that
we've
shared
some
thoughts
gone
through
this
document
to
call
it
unless
anyone
has
any
other
topics,
ideas
feel
free
to
pipe
in.
Otherwise
we
can
call
it
here,
I'll,
probably
meet
with
venky
the
next
time
he
has
a
chance
to
run
through
what
kind
of
was
discussed.
What
the
options
are,
what
people
are
thinking
and
then
from
there
we
can
probably
book.
A
Another
call
maybe
have
some
forward-looking
thoughts,
any
actions,
and
then
maybe
I
know
maybe
that's
even
like
the
swap
for
call
next
tuesday,
since
it's
already
on
our
calendar
yeah,
I
missed
the
heck
on
call,
I
suppose,
yeah.
So
I
think
super
productive
call.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
being
here.
Any
other
final
thoughts,
questions
comments.
A
A
Yeah
well,
thank
you
very
much.
Everyone
I'll
sync
up
with
you
guys
in
the
chat
next
tuesday,
will
be
a
call
thanks.