Still against this proposal… and this looks weird to me:
Top 2 YES voters are anonymous and have 2M+ VP.
1 Like
I think it would be good for DG to first remove liquidity from the ICE-USDC pool,
Given that >60% of the circulating supply of ICE is inside the liquidity pool, a big portion of it could be burned in an effort to reduce the supply of ICE.
If not, given that DG is the only provider of liquidity for ICE, is like people who will participate on the LP given the mana rewards, are buying back ICE from DG and not helping pumping it which is what DG needs in order to stabilize the ICE ecosystem.
In other words,
Mana rewards on the LP, with the amount of ICE locked on the LP, can produce a price movement towards 0.03-0.04 cents, that wouldnt allow DG to start minting once again, it would only be a money transfer value from people buying ICE from DG.
If the liquidity locked on the LP was lower, and DG also made an effort to burn a sizable amount of the circulating supply, that could drive ICE price higher and make ICE poker product appealing once again and start driving users into the ecosystem as it used to do
^ The DG DAO voted in favor with 2M votes via a passed governance proposal, but don’t want to speculate who the 4.4M vote is. Honestly not certain.
We welcome your feedback so would sincerely like to hear more from you besides “Still against this proposal.”
Thank you, ser.
We considered this. Unfortunately, only [USDC, ETH, MATIC, QUICK] allow for routing on QuickSwap. For example, you can swap ICE <> XYZ in one transaction if both ICE and XYZ have USDC LP. Since MANA has so little LP on QuickSwap, the pool wouldn’t be very useful… You couldn’t complete ICE → MANA → XYZ Trade even if you did 2 txs.
Would be very supportive of another proposal to deepen MANA liquidity to one of the 4 QuickSwap routing pair tokens, but this is just a blocker at the moment.
For Decentraland Daily Active Users: MANA incentives for USDC-ICE LP
This proposal is now in status: PASSED.
Voting Results:
- Yes 75% 7,641,299 VP (75 votes)
- No 25% 2,615,466 VP (28 votes)
1 Like
Reyean that’s true but markets be markets, the ICE-USDC pool will get arbed to equilibrium with the other ICE-MANA pool. What I mean is, if the ICE token is different in the ICE-MANA, arbitrageurs will trade USDC → ICE → MANA → USDC until ICE price is the same in both pools. The benefit is that this will allow MANA holders to participate, adding single side supply of MANA on the MANA-ICE pair, which basically is the equivalent as buying ICE with MANA, propping up the price of the ICE token.
I understand where you’re coming from and see the potential benefit, but there would need to be MANA-USDC liquidity to complete the 3 transaction trade “USDC → ICE → MANA → USDC.” It’s risky to assume people will also add this liquidity in order to complete the arb.
While we cannot no for sure that people would not add MANA-USDC liquidity as well, believe the path of least resistance would simply be for the MANA-ICE pool to go unused in light of MANA’s lack of liquidity with a QuickSwap routing pair.
Hey, sorry, right after you posted I moved the conversation to the current proposal: [DAO: QmRw8jR] For Decentraland Daily Active Users: MANA incentives for USDC-ICE LP - #6 by cazala
@esteban – Thank you very much for the kind words and for your support. Speaking for the DG Team, we’ve really appreciated the close collaboration with the Decentraland Team over the years as well. This was indeed promoted to the third and last stage. Link here: For Decentraland Daily Active Users: MANA incentives for USDC-ICE LP
@cazala – Got it, ser! Will follow up there.