rewards directly to wallet vs withdrawal mechanism
I think for this it should definitely be a withdrawal mechanism because like any other protocol or team will confirm, sending any amount of rewards to this many wallets frequently, the transaction costs will add up considerably and all those costs will drain up treasury and operational funds.
with a withdrawal mechanism you can then have the deposits accrue with each holder, and the user can choose when to withdraw paying the transaction fees when it suits them best.
Hi, sorry for joining the discussion later, Iâll try to address the points mentioned.
I believe there are better ways of positively impacting WRT value, such as @ndrjkvc mentioned potential buybacks, e.g. we could vote to buy back WRT with a portion of treasury fees.
Also, this feature would be dev-heavy and I believe that that time can be better spent improving the protocol, as mentioned by @_lucasribeiro, the most feasible with current conditions being paying batcher fees in WRT, which is in a way a buyback mechanism if you think about it.
Anyhow, for this feature to be technically feasible it can only operate with the protocol fee part of swaps. With current contracts, itâs not possible to modify fees (which is something that could be nice to fix in a potential v2). So that leaves you basically operating with 0.05% (in the case of stableswaps 0.01%) of the total trading volume.
By todayâs numbers itâs really not that much, I know you stated that this would also be future-proofing, so we have this in place when the trading volume gets higher. But letâs say you have a 10M volume in USD per month, then the protocol fees from that will be 0.05%, so 5k USD. If you then letâs say will take half of it to distribute among WRT holders you are operating with 2.5k USD. Plus roughly half of trading volume is ADA, so the rest is in other tokens. So the technicalities get even more complicated.
Overall itâs an interesting proposal, but I am afraid itâs rather more complex and less effective than letâs say a buyback mechanism.
Not true necessarily, if you are adding the rewards to a boosting vault periodically or sending them to users directly you still need to pay tx fees. Actually distributing just ADA directly to users would be cheaper than adding it to a boosting vault smart contracts as you donât have to pay for execution of scripts on-chain.
The only benefit of boosting vault here, is if you want to distribute sums of less than the min ADA requirements of a UTxO you can because the UTxO already exists.
this is a quality breakdown. thanks for giving some team insight.
for what itâs worth even if this particular idea is not entirely feasible as is, the potential ideas that can come from discussions on here such as this can lead to something else that will bring value down the road. weâll need to take a step back then and have a think about it. WRT batcher fees are something that everyoneâs looking forward to and step in the right direction I believe. thanks again!
I have not presented the proposal to vote well because the Wingriders website to present the proposal does not support the length of the minimum characters necessary to paste the ipfs link (2 characters are missing) and the same happens to paste the link that leads to the link of the community discussion (I had to remove the https:// from the front so that Wingriders would accept it) and now the links in the proposal do not lead to the necessary documentation
I am sorry we didnât continue the discussions here to create an actually viable proposal for WRT utility and instead ended up with a proposal that is not well presented in our governance section.
Weâll fix those issues, but next time if you have issues creating a proposal, feel free to open a ticket before and not after creating it and wanting us to cancel it. Right now weâll just fix it on frontend to show correct information to users as the voting already started and we donât deem it correct for us to cancel an already ongoing proposal.
The issues with community portal links and IPFS links character limits are getting fixed, although I am not sure why your IPFS link is longer than the ones we had till now .
Anyway the state in which you submitted the proposal itâs not possible to implement it right now without a v2 upgrade to our contracts. Mainly due to this:
The rewards would come from the swap fees currently collected and distributed to the liquidity providers (LPs). These would change from 0.30% to 0.265% with 0.035% being allocated to WRT holders in boosting Vault.
As mentioned above by me in this discussion:
Anyhow, for this feature to be technically feasible it can only operate with the protocol fee part of swaps. With current contracts, itâs not possible to modify fees (which is something that could be nice to fix in a potential v2). So that leaves you basically operating with 0.05% (in the case of stableswaps 0.01%) of the total trading volume.
So, I am sorry this has been lost in the discussion, but itâs important to consider this when voting. Technically WRT holders are right now voting on a much more complex proposal than just the ADA distribution itself as the current state of the proposal would require a contracts upgrade.
I think thatâs a reasonable conclusion meaning if something like this cannot be implemented with the current contracts in place, and this vote is passed, then the community has voted for implementing this type of mechanism for once the DEX smart contracts allow for this type of fee adjustments, such as Wingriders v2.
Hopefully we can all take what we learned from this one together to improve on future proposals, and how to handle them best. One thing Iâve noted already is that we do need a community guide for the process, like how to upload IPFS documentation. weâre already working on this from Community Management side and hopefully can share something for all fairly soonâŚ
Nevertheless, congrats on getting a community-led DAO proposal to a vote!
As mentioned above even though the exact implementation might be dependent on many factors, and will therefore take some time and consideration, I see the vote itself being more about seeing if the community is behind implementing this type of mechanism for WRT holders
I would like to add some points from dev perspective regarding the proposal documentation that has been submitted.
To achieve this, we can leverage the infrastructure already built within the Boost Vault.
and later on you go on to say
The ADA returns will be available at the end of each 5-day epoch for harvesting in the Impulse Vault.
with the âImpulse Vaultâ having some lock-up mechanics. Not sure if Impulse Vault and Boosting Vault are supposed to be the same thing itâs not very clear from the document.
Regardless, with the introduction of a lockup period mechanic âleveraging infrastructure built already for Boosting Vaultâ gets more tricky. From dev perspective, this requires us to build new contracts for this new lock-up vault, and ideally make it replace Boosting Vault (although you need to support both indefinitely) as you can only lock up your WRTs only once. This is a considerable dev effort, plus the collection and distribution mechanics around the allocated ADA. I am not saying this is not possible, just that when you consider dev costs and other priorities there are possibly better ways to use this resource.
And also itâs not clear to me from the proposal documentation how the boost should work? If 10 people are using the Impulse Vault and there is 100 ADA to distribute and no one is boosting then each gets 10 ADA. If one of them has 3-month lockup then he counts as 2 people so everyone gets roughly 9 ADA and he gets 18? Or how did you envision it?
The TVL of an app goes up if there are adequate incentives for it to happen. It may be the most complex thing in the world but if the WRT token does not obtain direct benefits from the app business, what incentives are there to maintain WRT? Do you have any magic formula to raise its price that we donât know about? By the way, I didnât imagine it. I saw it built in the competition.
Hello again guys, iâll try to express my thoughts from what iâve already seen written. Mind skipping my reply if i write non sense.
The proposal seems well intended, but the analogy in dev time implementing it at current stage WR lives on seems like itâs not worth it. What i mean is, if WR devs have to spend so much time on something, has to be a catalyst in regards of TVL.
TNT fairly asks if there is a magic formula? I personally think that the only thing that can give WRT value is:
Marketing - partnerships. What i mean is, a scenario where WR already knows projects or stables that are about to launch & also is aware of possible big liquidity coming their way through agreements. From what i know USDM did their audit with sundaeswapâŚ
So, if we do not expect anything from partnerships, COMMUNITY BATCHERS have to come yesterdayâŚ& yes iâm aware that this is the only source of funds for the team to keep building & itâs a fair statement, but who said there wonât be more pain?
My thought is to give a % of the batcher fee to community batchers & rest to keep going to a team wallet. I hope this is achievable easily somehow, since i have 0 dev knowledge.
So, there will be an announcement, letâs say 25% to community batchers that hold a certain amount of WRT & also an anticipation incentive within the announcement that 25% will become 30 then 35 etcâŚ
I truly believe that a buyback mechanism is more effective bringing the WRT price up and being implemented, but I canât ignore the appeal that âreceiving ADA for holding WRTâ has. Sometimes something that sounds cooler can be of more value.
Keep in mind that the main objective here is to raise WRT price using ADA distribution to WRT holders. So Iâll criticize it trying to shape a better proposal, so we can achieve this objective in an easier and faster way:
The dev team stated that itâs cheaper to just send ADA directly to wallets. Why does this proposal documentation says to send it to boosting vault and then require a harvest from the user?
If we really want it to get implemented as soon as possible, wouldnât it be better to just use the protocol fee, as stated before by the dev team? Something like 0.035% to WRT holders and 0.015% to DAO treasury. Whenever we get the V2, we can pass another vote to adjust this new utility to use the LP fees in the proportions described in this proposal documentation;
Wouldnât it be more efficient (less fees involved) to distribute ADA in a higher interval? Something like every 3~6 epochs?
a) I wouldnât use a lockup period to âincreaseâ rewards, because if the rewards amount is given by the trading volume, whatâll actually happen is:
No lockup: 0.1x
3-month lockup: 0.2x
6-month lockup: 0.3x
12-month lockup: 0.5x
18-month lockup: 0.8x
24-month lockup: 1.0x
b) If you still want to use a lockup mechanism, I would do it in a second proposal after we have V2 implemented and also with something less aggressive:
No lockup: 0.8x
3-month lockup: 0.9x
6-month lockup: 1.0x
These are my thoughts on why we should vote âNoâ right now, but rework the proposal to make it more effective and put it back to be voted later on.
Good morning! Blocking periods may be subject to modification in a later proposal. You have my support for this and for the debate. I proposed it that way because no one commented anything on the subject and thatâs why I understood that it seemed fine to everyone. Regarding the proposal launched, the vote is very tight but there are 43 votes in favor and 7 against. I believe that nothing good is built behind the backs of the majority. I remain convinced that this proposal was necessary. Convinced that it should even have been implemented for a long time and provided for in the V1 contracts. It is surprising how little support from within for something so basic and so necessary (at least thatâs what I think)
If I belonged to the core team or were a whale-level token holder I would consider rejecting the proposal many times before voting no. Think about the message that is sent to those interested in WRT when the competition already distributes ADA among its investors and the Wingriders DAO does not even accept the proposal. Itâs great that the page is speeding up and super fast and Iâm sure it took a lot of work and knowledge to achieve it but people want incentives
I understand your point of view, TNT. I also believe that this vote was necessary, but Iâm being pragmatic: the way it was described in the proposal documentation, it wonât be possible to implement it at the moment.
What Iâm saying is: we can make your proposal be implemented more efficiently, because we can implement it:
With what we already have: we wonât have to wait for v2;
Paying less fees: send ADA directly to wallets (no execution of scripts on-chain), no harvest fees and less frequent distributions (less transaction fees);
With a better UX: no action required for the user, just receive the ADA automatically in the wallet;
Spending less dev time: very expensive resource.
Anyway, whatever the voting result is, unfortunately weâll need another proposal if we really want to get something implemented as quickly as possible.
Thanks for being open to discussion. It helps a lot to keep the discussion healthy.
.
