Why are all my responses defending myself against false accusations deleted @stonecoldpat ? Either allow everyone to defend themselves or restrict the discussion to the substance of the proposal (I’m for the latter). Everything else doesn’t seem fair and very biased.
Kinda sad when a foundation fundraising platform can be hijacked by trolls and used to exact “revenge” on a project. Even more concerning is participation by grant recipients and their constituents. If u cannot respond wit a logical why or why not solidly should/should not receive funds should be based on logic and facts, then don’t respond. The integrity of this process should mean more to mods and arb delegates than the feelings of these revenge seekers. I hope the delegates can see through the attacks and look at the real data and facts and logically come to a good decision. A project should be allowed to grow and mature beyond its mistakes made in the past. Also if a project can provide value through new tech improvements etc that project should be supported as this is supporting good tech. Which is the point of the grant program in the first place.
P.S. Also delegates should be wary of such a concerted effort to down a project. Usually fud attacks like this have a reason and purpose behind them. I take solace in the fact however that delegates can dyor and decide for themselves. Just sad to see this democratic process hijacked for the purposes of evil
1 big bonus is solidly TVL to volume efficiency. I believe it’s the best in all of crypto. On every chain solidly deploys to it’s usually in the top 5 in volume wit minimal TVL. Supporting solidly TVL means the ability to support more volume(always a good thing). I think the proposal of supporting key pairs wit liquidity makes sense as lp programs add more ecosystem value than just an incentive program to drive more solidly activity. Solidly proposal aims to improve the liquidity depth on arbitrum in key pairs which is always a good thing. If the forks of solidly can get support from foundation I don’t see why the original protocol can’t get any help as it inspired all these other “solidly” dexes in first place
I’ve been a use of the Soldily platform for some time now and they really are on the cutting edge of new tech, of course, there are growing pains, but when isn’t there in tech?
Lots of praise for the team and do hope the Arb foundation can see past the childish attacks on the protocol
Peace
Hey there,
Thanks for bringing these points up. Let me give a bit more context on them:
-
You are right there are UI/UX issues. I joined June 2023 and I started working on an existing codebase that was utterly terrible and outdated. Given the short amount of time and the lack of funding since the project is 100% self-funded, I had to do whatever I could to release a viable product. Also keep in mind that we released feature after feature, thus giving no time to undergo any major improvements. We went through lots of iterations and still we are not there yet and I totally agree with you, that’s why Solidly will undergo a complete revamp with UI being written from scratch with latest tech.
-
Efficiency is key and we all know that. If you take a look at analytics or comparisons between our on-chain data wrt Uniswap, you can see an enormous gap in efficiency both TVL/Volume ratio and gas cost. The latter gives us an enormous advantage when being chosen by aggregators (which currently play a huge role in our Volume). So in the end our project will be seen as a better solution, with better, sustainable APRs, making the whole ecosystem benefit from it.
-
True also on this, but there have been some issues with our off-chain rewarder computations. We later found out that TTF of other blockchains exposed inefficiency in our computations, resulting in a complete impossibility to calculate them. Thus @Seraph underwent multiple iterations to fix all of these.
-
I can’t talk on that. My experience with Seraph was completely different. He has been treating me well enough and has always reliable in every discussions that we had. Definitely he has strong opinions and he wants more than sometime it’s achievable, and this can be an issue for some, but it has been instrumental and it’s thanks to this if we Solidly Labs, achieved what we did.
-
I have no comment. It can be seen definitely as unprofessional, but was mainly for a laugh, but I concur.
-
I prefer a basic and simplified UI. Extra bells and whistles is just clutter…The Google homepage is basic web 1.0 and it’s perfect.
-
Capital flows to the most efficient path. The gas savings provided by Solidly will attract capital efficiency and provide Arbitrum users with a more efficient experience.
-
This issue is being worked on and addressed. An automated rewarder is next on the roadmap.
-
What does this have to do with protocol performance?
-
They were a great pair if you ask me.
The grant is not awarded to protocols that have the best UI, but to protocols that innovate. In the last year, Solidly has delivered cutting-edge technological improvements to Uni V3, which can be easily verified on-chain by analyzing it’s capital efficiency with respect to it’s peers. Additionally, its omnichain solution, one protocol/token for all chains uniquely positions it within ve(3,3) space. UI is the same as the one of original Solidly and improvements are being rolled out continuously.
Again, the protocol offers unmatched capital efficiency (Volume/TVL ratio) with lowest gas fees on mainet and in my view, that’s what matters the most.
Regarding ‘constant technical issues’, there are none. As Seraph explained above, rewards were pushed late last week because of the RPC issue on Arbitrum. This can happen to any protocol and it is part of an operational risk that any protocol faces. Moreover, the team will provide automatic solution to Merkel pushes shortly in accordance with Cyfrin audit.
As for the other devs that don’t want to work with Seraph, I think it’s best to let them voice their opinion on the topic in this thread, then you speaking in their name. We are not here to judge whether someone likes someone, but the merits of proposal based on technical improvements which exist in spades for anyone who is genuinely interested.
Lastly, the marketing post you refer to is a singular occurrence where the team stepped out of what has been fairly professional communication. It is a singular occurrence and attempt at innovative marketing strategy, rather than the norm. Presenting it as such is not fair to the team.
I have a position of about 5% of my crypto equity in SOLID, among a few other governance DEX tokens.
And about 75% of my equity in various LPs. I’ve used Uniswap, PCS, TraderJoe, and various forks and smaller DEXs.
Speaking almost strictly from the position of an LPer prioritizing return on capital, can say that the efficiency of Solidly for capturing volume and therefore fees/revenue, largely from what appears to be prioritization of aggregators, is very attractive. Absent a temporarily pumped emissions token somewhere subsidizing APRs, Solid has been the best at delivering $$ fees for the amount of capital deployed and IL taken on from LPing.
I have no qualms with Ramses or any other DEXs and use them as well. No opinion or insight on past quarrels. Just speaking from a capital deployment standpoint, TVL that is attracted to Solidly will likely be very sticky as long as Solidly’s efficiency lead on Volume:TVL ratio persists.
Just my $0.02 for what it’s worth. I like Arbitrum chain, been using it since 2022, and I think approving the grant would be useful here and have a return of increasing on-chain volume and deepening liquidity. Offering additional incentives on top of intrinsically efficient positions will help us continue to pull capital from other chains.
1 Like
Yes, Solidly stands out as one of the most groundbreaking DEX protocols available! The data is clear: every dollar invested in grants will yield exponential returns, drawing in more TVL and users to Arbitrum.
Except we are not on Ethereum, we are on Arbitrum, and Solidly is NOT the most capital efficient dex on Arbitrum. In the last 24 hours Solidly did ~2.9m in volume with a TVL of ~841k. Ramses did ~49m with TVL of 14.3m. So both dexs did ~3.4x volume to tvl. Solidly is not more efficient. But here is the big difference: Ramses took in $25k in fees. All the volume you guys brag about is coming from your usdc/usdc.e pool which dropped the fee down to .002%. So Solidly can barely keep up with Ramses efficiency even when you are artificially pumping volume by dropping your fees down to nothing. Ramses is spanking Solidly in this metric. It would be comical if Ramses dropped their fee to match that same pool for 24 hours and completely demolished your precious tvl/volume efficiency you won’t stop bragging about. Stop claiming to be more efficient, it simply isn’t true. Solidly isn’t more efficient. It doesn’t have a good UI. You have a terrible reputation. And you want 750k ARB for no reason I can ascertain that will bring more users or TVL to Arbitrum.
1 Like
This comment looks not objective and seem one-sided. Anyway in your comparison you need to take into account from which pools the fees comes from and also TVL plays a huge role, since for big trade we are not chosen due to low liquidity, hence resulting in not optimal trade execution.
There is nothing actually groundbreaking about it. It is just UniV3 with gas optimizations and a 20% fee cut for veSOLID holders, the vast majority of which are the team and its members (Roosh + Seraph).
The current volume / TVL numbers are skewed by the fact that the DEX is under cutting Uniswap by up to a factor of 5x on top volume pairs. I think if Solidly wants to prove any real efficiency differences it should begin by normalizing fees to market rates and then come back to the DAO with real 1:1 comparisons. In the end gas optimizations will like not have a major impact, especially after 4844.
It is also a marginal player on Arbitrum from both a TVL and volume standpoint. The ask for 750,000 ARB valued at about $1,500,000 is 1.8x larger than the TVL on the DEX itself on Arbitrum which feels pretty egregious as an ask. It is unclear what problem this kind of investment uniquely would solve for Arbitrum.
And again since the vast majority of the locked supply is owned by the team or team members and veSOLID gets a 20% cut of fees, this grant would really just be about bailing out two folks who are facing a lack of traction and a 95% draw down in token price vs ETH.
1 Like
First, aggregating all the pools for measuring capital efficiency doesn’t make sense. You could have a single pool that drives majority of your volume. It doesn’t mean your are efficient, it only means you are a single LP provider for that pool. Furthermore, Ramses specifically since you insist on this example, has almost 100 pools, so it isn’t really fair comparison.
Second, usdc/usdc.e pool in question has only 82k liquidty on Solidly, while 2.1mil on Ramses. No matter how capital efficient you are, you need a certain liquidity depth for aggregators to route through. Capital efficiency means if both Ramses and Solidly had the same LP size, more capital efficient solution would drive more volume.
Third, since both Ramses and Solidly use concentrated liquidity, the question is how much of that liquidity was in range on a given day, especially if Ramses has ALM solution integrated and given recent volatility where people ended-up outside the range quickly.
Fourth, Solidly is not integrated with all aggregators on Arbitrum, including major ones (1inch, Paraswap) and it launched relatively recently which means it doesn’t have equal market penetration and use base as Ramses (hence grant application!). If Ramses is integrated with all aggregators, then this is not a fair comparison.
According to defillama, previous day overall Solidly vol/tvl ratio across all platforms was 2.28, still well below Ramses 2.89. I can’t understand why you guys are still throwing around this claim of supremecy in efficiency. Ramses consistently beats you in this metric.
1 Like
Please see above. If you wish to carry out proper analysis, please be more nuanced. This kind of analysis is very limited.
1 Like
So you are claiming to have superior capital efficiency, then giving examples of why you don’t have superior capital efficiency.
Optimizations doesn’t need to be groundbreaking. They need to solve an issue and improve the current State of the Art.
Initial fee adjustment is normal to get into the market and to not get skewed by big players, that’s a reasonable strategy to put in act in order to attract TVL and market traction. But keep in mind that Solidly has dynamic fees which play a huge role especially during high volatility market movements, resulting in huge APRs for LPers.
Also what you suggest is difficult. How would a project that just landed on ARB can compete or have the same TVL as other projects that probably have taken other grants, resulting in great TVL increase?
What should be taken into account is what has been achieved on Ethereum or Fantom (3#, 1# respectively). You can clearly see the efficiency there.
On the NFT side, I will leave the word to @Seraph.
1 Like
Please see above. The pool in question (usdc/usdc.e) is not a representative example since it only has 82k in liquidity. The proper analysis is more nuanced and cherry-picking data points to support ones bias is not a fair thing to do.
Furthermore, even with a very limited TVL (less than 1mil on Arb) it is already consistently top 5-7 dex on chain, without all major aggregators, ALM integration and proper liquidity depth due to a recent launch. Hence, it unfair to make such simplistic comparisons,
1 Like
Who wishes to understand and carry out proper, unbiased analysis will do so. It is not my aim to convince you one way or another.
Just analyze the data properly and understand what is a representative example and what is a bias in your analysis.
1 Like
It is actually amazing how well it performs given limitations and obstacles on its path.