[RAMSES] [FINAL] [STIP - Round 1]

[mhiztasolid]

Interesting… definitely worth to read

[Seraph]

While the number on USDC/USDC.e certainly looks impressive (24h volume currently at $4.2m) you have to ask what is this achieving for $1.3m in LPs? Ramses set the fee extremely low at 0.001%. Meaning that LPs created $42 in fees for the day, of which they earn 20%, or a whopping $8.4. mind you, this is an APR of 0.23%. US treasury bonds currently earn you 20x more.

Obviously Ramses is heavily subsidizing it, meaning they’re currently losing money on this pair, at a ratio of around $1 earned per $5 spent. It’s a good marketing gig I guess, but technically speaking not wash trading - in their defense. At least not from the 2-3 transactions I’ve just randomly looked at.

[ZIsBraindead]

It does not matter what it’s doing for LPs, it’s clearly enough, as they have added their money into the pool. You, as a DEx owner/CEO should know this. This really just proves to me that you are grasping at any opportunity to drag RAMSES through the ground, for no reason.

[ZIsBraindead]

@Seraph

Try spending money at a 5 to 1 ratio for some months/years and tell me what that will do to your baseline. Of course it might not be representative for the rest of the DEX, but people were talking about this particular pair in the last few posts because it created 50% of this DEXes volume in the past few days. I had a closer look and these were my findings, showing that Ramses has been playing with ultra-low fees on this pair, which makes me think this is a marketing gig, nothing wrong with that. Clearly it’s working, look a us talking about it!

I suggest you take a look at this, a pretty simple concept that I would expect you to already know about.

@Seraph

if DEXes on Arbitrum have recently decreased their fees during the proposal period – they certainly were incentivized to.

This is misleading, as RAMSES has been experimenting with fees for much longer than you imply here, even enabling the 0.005% fee tier over a month ago.

@Seraph

Keep the ad hominem’s up, it really proves your point
But it’s understandable, as Andre Cronje once told me:

It’s anon, financially incentivized, pvp, sport clubs
Worst of all worlds

Please keep this discussion on topic.

@Seraph

And just for disclosure, obviously I might be biased, as we will soon step out of our hibernation mode (we already ran our beta on Arbitrum in November 2022) and promptly re-launch/upgrade on Arbitrum as well.

Again, keep this discussion on topic. This does not strike me as an attempt at transparency, but an attempt to plug your own DEx, which to me seems to underperform compared to RAMSES, so it would not be much of a problem had you not told us.

[peter]

This thread could be re-written to be a research some how. Anyway, this proposal is likely to fail.

[SEEDGov]

Ramses: @North

From @Seedgov led by the @cattin delegation, we want to convey our support to this proposal. The reasons why we agree are as follows:

• A better proposal than version 1, where they only incentivized veRAM voting.
• Ramses is an efficient DEX and has demonstrated good volume relative to its TVL.

We want to clarify that this is not the final vote, since as we clarify in this release, the final vote is defined by our community. We also want to invite you to attend our Governance Call that will be held tomorrow in our discord.

[LootCapital]

The back and forth team , one of kind, aka moderators favorite showrunner of this forum.

[toastyalph]

It hurts that the community pushed the team into switching rewards to LPs instead of veRAM holders. Goes to show that the builders on ARB are top quality while the users are still very under educated on most DeFi protocols or lack basic economic knowledge.

It seems obvious that LPers will dump their rewarded ARB much faster than someone who is willing to lock the RAM token for multiple years. Rewards go to veRAM holders because they are the users that are dedicated to the ecosystem overall, not LPs who can easily remove liq and even switch chains quickly.

Overall Ramses should have gotten the first proposal, paying rewards directly to LPs is a loss for ARB, and the Ramses team.

[ITUblockchain]

While we accept the Ramses proposal and its unique approach to DeFi liquidity solutions, we have reservations about the requested grant size and the clarity of the proposal. The proposed grant amount appears significant and we would welcome more detailed justification for this amount. Additionally, the proposal could benefit from greater transparency and a clearer explanation of how initiatives will directly benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem.

For this reason, as ITU Blockhain, we are not currently keen on this offer.

[Dog]

Thanks for your response! Have you read the most recent proposal? It seems your comments are based on the initial proposal before the review period, which was drastically changed to align with similar incentives programs of other AMMs, and to reflect the community’s feedback.

Happy to answer any questions you have, but unsure where you are unclear on the proposal.

[North]

Hi @Matt_StableLab @cliffton.eth

Following our submission during the KYC process, we would like to confirm here the change of the multisig address to 2/2 and: `0xF201d600BB9CefB544BA6261583773f03415b244’

Thank you