It doesn’t matter, just tell him what he wants to hear, this whole proposal was a premeditated plan to steal ARB from the DAO for an ellaborate team of “insiders”.
Clearly Ramses hasn’t just adjusted proposal to what delegates want (even if they don’t believe thats the most efficient model for the grant distribution).
Let’s move on. Not again.
Oh no Perl is still not happy.
Ramses should have started out with this proposal and then let the public force them into changing it to what they originally had. In any case, camelot users and ramses foes alike can count this as a win because it is the best way to ensure the token holders and devs get the least amount of benefit possible, even if it is at the expense of LPs mercilessly dumping ARB.
I am still not satisfied Ramses is getting any grant at all but this outcome is the least worst in my opinion. People act like dex efficiency is a great thing but if Ramses is allowed to run a successful grant program and get any more depth in their pools it could lead to the majority of swaps routing through Ramses and keep in mind there are other dexs on Arbitrum and people have invested a lot of money in them.
I’ve never had any issue on approaches focusing on partners and protocols liquidity, quite the contrary. I had an issue with the way the ARB was distributed in the previous proposal, and in particular what the “recycling” method was implying when 70% of the supply belongs to team/treasury/partners.
Systematically complaining or trolling when a simple question is asked is just bad looks imho, you don’t even give the team the space to answer and immediately flood the thread.
All I did was ask the team its reasoning behind the new distribution strategy. No need to overreact. You’re all free to ignore if you think the question is dumb.
The other posts add nothing to the discussion, so I won’t bother commenting on them.
People act like dex efficiency is a great thing but if Ramses is allowed to run a successful grant program and get any more depth in their pools it could lead to the majority of swaps routing through Ramses and keep in mind there are other dexs on Arbitrum and people have invested a lot of money in them.
I hate to be that guy but I’m pretty sure he’s trolling, lol. Look at his name and his previous comments— I wouldn’t take it seriously. It’s meant to be ironic. @scott @dansco8 @alphaomegacat
At this point @Perl I think you have a personal agenda or similar against Ramses. After all this time, you still have issues even after the entire proposal was changed.
And why this aggressiveness against Ramses only, you don’t seem to have any issues when other protocols, such as Chronos are passing the proposal with bribe matching. Are they your friends who aren’t “hijacking large amounts of Arb discreetly”?
It was already approved for snapshot even with the original proposal as far as I’m concerned.
Seems the hottest topic in the ARB grant discussion. Definitely worth to read
Speaking from our experience at Gamma, I wanted to give a shout-out to the Ramses team for always being excellent partners to us. They’ve had great comms, treated us fairly, and worked with us on a challenging integration step-by-step. I encourage the Arbitrum delegates to support this proposal.
- 50% of ARB allocated as direct LP incentives for concentrated liquidity pairs, with a focus on ARB pairings, key ecosystem participants, and blue-chips
- 50% of ARB allocated as direct LP incentives matched to fees generated on the pair by the end of the prior epoch. Epoch N-1 fees will be matched with ARB distributed to Epoch N liquidity providers. This has a global cap of up to 52,000 ARB/Epoch, and RAM will be used to match these (up to 1,000,000/epoch).
It is good to see that the team have taken feedback onboard.
All proposals should include a detailed breakdown of the specific pools where incentives are being allocated. I would like to see the specifics of where these incentives (as I am requesting from all applications) before I can even consider having the necessary data to make a vote.
Just saying 50% to “concentrated liquidity pairs” is very vague, there should be more detail and parameters in place, the same for the other 50%.
Ramses is not more ‘capital efficient’
This is volume being driven from Ramses having a predatory trading fee. They are capturing a greater share of aggregator routing as their rates are low or the lowest in the market for key pairs.
The underlying AMM is the same composition as Uniswap v3 / Algebra AMMs. Not sure what Ramses forked and built on, assuming Uniswapv3.
Essentially it is not more capital efficient, it is simply capturing volume due to trading rates being low.
Concentrated liquidity can do multiple highs of utilization, that isn’t new and it certainly was not built by or innovated on top of by the Ramses team. Whatever they are doing with incentives, may be more efficient v Camelot etc, but ultimately the core protocol is forked.
You didn’t get the point I’m afraid, if your incentive model provokes the average LPer to be willing to be more tighter than Uniswap, the result is that it is more efficient, not because CL tech is superior but because the concentration of incentives are aligned in different direction.
All Ramses is claming is, our model where a % of fees is replaced by a incentive token that forms part of a ve33 system, produces better alignment thus tighter ranges.
This is not even a presumption or speculation, it’s literally what is happening. It isn’t a crazy idea to expect similar results with further growth.
Made an account purely to comment on this. This is not a response to the team, but rather the big delegates that pushed ram to make this change… This change i view as an incredibly stupid mistake. Its worse for Arbitrum, its worse for ramses and its worse as a whole for the ecosystem and users of the ecosystem. This is purely to satisfy voters looking for mercinary farming. Thats the truth of it. Here arbitrum had an opportunity to see the difference in effectivness between the different exchange models. instead you brush everyone under the same rug and do not let the different models build strategies that complement their techs. dumb all around. Well… Guess I will provide liquidity and just farm and dump for a couple of months instead. Cause thats literally what the delegates here have asked for and prefer. This discussion shows what has been wrong with crypto for years… Short term thinking over long term thinking.
And they are going to get paid for delegate, like delegate what?! Its just a big circus for insiders.
Well, the general consensus is that delegators are hiding behind the excuse that “STIP” is too short for longer-term goals and its just a “quick stimulus” to get going.
However, it’s gonna be pretty hard to convince community this isn’t just a conflict of interest cashgrab… time will tell.
Hello @North,
Now that your application has been marked eligible, please be advised of the remaining steps in the application process to be completed prior to the Review Period Deadline:
Please complete the following steps required for your application to proceed to Snapshot:
Once you change your proposal title to final, please tag an Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator (@ stonecoldpat @ cliffton.eth @ eli_defi) by the Review Period deadline to notify them of your proposal’s readiness.
Once marked as [Final], your application post will be locked by moderators and you will no longer be able to edit your proposal.
Hello @North
To change your proposal to final, please tag an Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator (@ stonecoldpat @ cliffton.eth @ eli_defi) by the Review Period deadline to notify them of your proposal’s readiness to proceed from [Draft] to [Final] status.
Once notified, the Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator will adjust your title from [Draft] to [Final] status. Once marked as [FInal], your application post will be locked by moderators and you will no longer be able to edit your proposal.
They are a great team and very focused on growing the Arbitrum ecosystem. I fully support Ramses and the team in their proposal and initiatives…