Its been a long time since I’ve visited the forum so I need a recap and neither of the proposals offer a brief. Some of what I bring up may not be privy to us community members but please identify these questions which are considered holy cows.
What is Hopr’s budget to engage with these management firms?
Are both firms prices–terms the same?
Aside from price stabilization (?) and removing a burden from Hopr team, what exact potential or tangible benefits are to be produced affecting node operators and token holders?
Is any part of these processes involved with Hopr’s dodgy insurance associate, Chad Liu of Tidal Finance?
Will both pair sides of Hopr token be offered on Uniswap, Hopr Eth and xHopr Gno?
GSR have expressed an interest but are waiting to see how the discussion develops. They’re a more traditional market maker though.
We had good discussions with several other projects, including Mellow and Enzyme, but they all had to pull out for various technical reasons. Some of them could potentially be solved in the medium term, others seem very unlikely (e.g., Enzyme requires a Chainlink price feed, but to get that you need $1m+ trade volume for three consecutive days).
We have an open call for more proposals, but that’s probably quite a long shot.
Hi again! Thanks for the questions. I’ll answer them to the best of my ability in my role as neutral moderator.
The HOPR Association has no budget for this. It’s purely a DAO decision. I’ve asked the founders to provide some opinions on numbers that might make sense (e.g., amount of assets to commit initially), but it would purely be advisory.
The terms are quite different actually, but rather buried in the respective proposals. I’ll try and think of a good way to produce a condensed comparison for people to more easily understand.
I think this is a question for the proposers to proactively answer.
No involvement of Tidal whatsoever.
Unfortunately Uniswap deployment on Gnosis has been massively delayed with no indication of when or even if it will happen. There was a governance decision was back in March, but problems with bridging are still unresolved. But we would strongly support doing this on Gnosis when possible.
Would be good if we could schedule this in the telegram group. With each manager answering each question. Then have the whole thing written up for a medium post as it might get confusing in the telegram timeline.
That’s a great idea. It would certainly answer a lot of questions in a less scripted and prepared way. It would also help voters feel more comfortable with the services and would help educate those in the community who aren’t active here on the forums.
Arrakis is the one I’ve already heard. It’s proposal is also well detailed. The idea of dividing funds between Arrakis and Gamma is very interesting if it’s possible.
I think there may be some confusion. From my reading, the Arrakis proposal was not about managing the existing liquidity, but adding more single-sided HOPR liquidity to the position. I personally don’t think that’s the right answer because the $7M in full range liquidity currently is more than enough to handle the current level of volumes (Uniswap Info)
There’s around 5k - 50K of volumes on average, and a 100K DAI swap for HOPR is only incurring 1.74% price impact. The average trade size is around 10K or less, so I don’t think additional liquidity is needed.
I think managing existing liquidity is the right answer here, and we would be happy to do that with Arrakis. But adding more single-sided HOPR seems excessive. It has the potential to mitigate upward price action and release more HOPR into circulating supply.
We’ve managed single-sided ranges before, but it was mainly for projects looking to source additional ETH or DAI. It was not for projects that currently had sufficient liquidity, so I do believe more single-sided HOPR is inappropriate in this scenario.
