The onchain efficiency comes from its savings in gas in swaps. Since solidly v3 is a full implementation of uni v3 wit further gas optimizations making it even more efficient than uni. @wavebender uni is by far the most efficient dex on arbi. Solidly is even more efficient than uni at comparable liquidity depths. U win every route and only reason solidly isn’t constantly at the top is because of TVL which this grant is proposing to address. If the gas optimizations didn’t work on l2’s then these real life example swaps wouldn’t be so pronounced https://x.com/solidlylabs/status/1763268553464000871?s=46&t=RvlAHLn9UrpZNfn8XIhBmQ
I am not sure why are we even discussing the efficiency when it can be checked on chain, and the results with the limited TVL solidly has speak for themselves. There are 4 things that matter when routing is calculated by aggegators
- tvl
- fees
- gas costs
- liquidity in range
What solidly bring to the table is lower gas cost, plus smarter fees that react to market volatility
this is on top of JIT liquidity protection for chains that get affected by these kinds of attacks.
TVL is what this grant application is aiming to bring, (and even the playing field against other dexes that got grants already, and using these grants built their current TVL).
In some chains some dexes can have more efficient pools if their users are in more concentrated positions, or if the TVL is way higher. But that is not a tech issue, that is a first mover advantage in most cases.
Any complaints that users had regarding reward distribution were during periods when there were issues that the team was working on fixing, and none of the issues resulted it any material losses, just short delays in claiming pending rewards (pending rewards are the ones accrued since the last mekle push, usually 24 hours worth of rewards). These issues were noted and solution was developed (and audited) so that in the future these issues do not repeat.
Calling it “just univ3 with gas optimizations and 20% fee cut” is like calling any other solidly fork “just univ2/v3 with 100% fee cut, and emission ponzinomics” (i have a personal thing against ve33 as envisioned originally so take my ponzinomics word with a grain of salt)
In this space everything is very competitive, and even small changes and improvements can matter a lot, also grants and extra incentives can kickstart projects and vamp volume and profits from other competitors. So I am not surprised with all the discussions here. When there is money involved there will always be drama and heated arguments.
I would love to have discussions regarding the merits of giving a grant to solidly, and if someone has valid concerns they need to be addressed.
4 Likes
The key difference of course being that ve(3,3) style DEXs have demonstrated product market fit across multiple chains and implementations as demonstrated by their size and scale, breadth of partnerships with protocols and builders across DeFi, and the wide distribution of their $ve tokens supplies.
Solidly meanwhile has launched over a year ago and is currently sitting at 144th with $7.92m in TVL across five chains, has (insofar as I know) one protocol incentivizing LPs, a low user count, and ve supply controlled not by a coalition of protocols and users but largely two team members.
You think that this the kinda thing that Arbitrum would be well served dropping $1.5M in incentives on? What do they to gain that they can’t get elsewhere?
1 Like
Solidly is not a standard ve33(and not trying to be), and was being built in the last 1 year thus it was inactive mostly during all this time, we had this conversation with you previously and clearly we don’t agree on the merits of ve33 dexes. This has nothing to do with the proposal though.
As for the ve supply and who controls it, i believe you will get your answer soon from seraph, as this might be the only real “concern” you have.
P.S. And you are missing the point that I am trying to make, neither of the two is just a uni clone
1 Like
Yes exactly. The point is that the ve(3,3) model has demonstrated PMF, whereas the Solidly v3 model of combining some UniV3 gas optimizations with a 20% cut of fees going to lockers (and mostly team) has demonstrated none to date.
So I think it is fair to call it “just univ3 with gas optimizations and 20% fee cut” as thus far, that is all it has proven itself to be. The economics just don’t seem to work.
Solidly will be worse than pure V3 and systems that direct 100% of the rewards to LPs, since you’re taking 20% of the fees and giving them to team/lockers. Thus they try to plug that hole with SOLID emissions. The issue is that SOLID emissions will be dumped unless veSOLID generates enough revenue to incentivize locking, which it is clear that 20% of fees (currently about $1k - $2k a day) is not sufficient to do, especially in a system whereby the team will never be diluted. So thus SOLID dumps to zero as LPs sell emissions (see the 95% draw down) and are no longer able to make up for the delta.
Leaving you with just… UniV3 with gas optimizations and a 20% fee cut, nearly no partners, and no traction without undercutting fees and spending treasury SOLID to boost rewards.
I’m again not sure why exactly this is the kinda thing that it would be in the interest of the ecosystem to invest more money than they have TVL propping up.
1 Like
Please keep posting your rhetorical questions at the end of each post ad nauseam.
Let me add one question to you as well, what happens when uniswap introduces their protocol fees that range from 10% to 25% depending on what they decide.
Which will be the dexes that give 100% of the rewards to the LPs, and how will they generate revenue to keep operating.
Anyway I am sure you can figure this out yourself, and you can keep ignoring the ve33 part that still exists (even if not the same format as what you offer in your dex-es).
I am sure this will not make any difference /s
Good night all, I hope tomorrow we can have some more productive discussions.
1 Like
Dear community members and delegators,
I would like to contribute to this conversation by expressing my strong disapproval of the Solidly community, particularly its project management team. Despite any assertions made during this discussion and the ensuing debates, I strongly recommend joining their Discord server to witness firsthand the toxic and discourteous behavior exhibited there. As a crypto community, we deserve better.
The manner in which they engage with the community and their evident animosity towards competitors reveal that they are not acting in good faith. If they do not alter their business practices and interpersonal interactions, they should not expect positive outcomes.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the availability of their rewards was not merely limited for a brief period. Instead, it spanned weeks before any SOLID rewards could be claimed by users. Throughout this time, they consistently promised imminent resolution while simultaneously dismissing inquiries and even resorting to banning supportive users who expressed their concerns and dissatisfaction.
Given these circumstances, I am firmly of the opinion that the grant should not be awarded to SOLIDLY.
3 Likes
Can someone answer me here?
Woah folks! A lot to unpack here, so let me shine some light into the accusations thrown, correct the inaccuracies (or even falsehoods), dismantle the biases and unspin the false narratives.
Let’s go 1 by 1!
First of all, I am not the person you want people to believe to be me from your screenshots, so let’s call it what it is:
Ad hominem & slander.
You’re not new to trying to dox people, the official Velodrome chat doxxed one of our co-founders, posting pictures of him, shortly after, regular threads started popping up on 4chan /biz/ with the doxxing info. We have all the proof safely stored.
You even tried to dox me but failed miserably, in the same Velodrome general chat, team members of Velodrome started showing pictures of an Ukrainian economics student and circulated the (false) rumor that this was me. I’m sure that poor student got harassed by your pack of trolls, God bless him.
Because of those reasons, our lawyer team sent Velodrome a cease & desist letter and the 4chan threads + doxxing suddenly stopped. It seems to have done it’s job very well.
Secondly, your argument of defending Ramses for creating 36 troll pools on our launch day is very weak. Let’s say you’re right and they made that pool in the screenshot because of that meme in that Discord chat you posted the text from. Can you rationalize the creation of 35 more pools? This seems to have been a very deliberate attempt at causing drama and spooking off new Arbitrum users from coming to our website, making it look very unwelcoming with the grotesque pair names created. We used to show all pools permissionlessly, but because of these actions we can’t do this anymore. You seem to have enjoyed and supported that attack on our protocol by gloating in the Ramses discord as evidenced in the screenshot above.
Do you regret supporting this attack on our protocol, if not, how do you justify it?
For readers wondering about this beef, the main reason is that we kept exposing the malicious actions by WeVe DAO within the Solidly V1 ecosystem back in the day, of which Alex Cutler was an integral part of (such as the WEVE PRIVATE CLUB rug, insider sniping before launch, Gabagool stealing 6 figures from their treasury etc. all of this can be verified on-chain).
So Alex comes from a very dark place of deeply ingrained vendetta and anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt, he is obviously very biased. He has no stake in Arbitrum and feels the need to spend hours spinning narratives in here. When our governance token started outperforming his multiple “sister forks” in the end of 2023 by a factor of dozen multiples, he lost his cool and started yelling at the sky almost every day on crypto twitter. All of this can be publicly verified.
Recently, several of our partners got fed up with Alex as he scorned some of them privately (in DMs) for… you won’t believe it…:
- Liking our twitter posts
They shared screenshots with us and we had a good chuckle of “yet another day in Alex world” 
The sad thing is this wasn’t a one-off, it happens with several protocols and several groups.
I won’t share screenshots of the private DMs but @Lojesad can attest to their veracity. All in all, Alex is very desperate to see us fail and he will shamelessly stop at absolutely nothing, to the point of upsetting very well respected and beloved members of large DeFi protocols who are are proud to call our partners.
Luckily the delegates can make up their own mind about this. Given that my self-defense post won’t be taken down again.
I think it was because I already answered your question but you somehow reformulated it 3 times to keep saying that our rewards are somehow broken. They’re not, they work fine with the exception of 2 hickups which were quickly resolved. The automatic merkle update that’s going live shortly will alleviate any of your additional concerns raised.
Yet again a small correction here, Alex. I didn’t open the thread by attacking anyone, the first post was made by @federalInformant which was baseless FUD and to which I replied, I asked the moderators to remove both his and my post but somehow the moderators left up my post despite my asking for it to be removed. If you had read the post you would’ve picked up on that, but I’m sure you were very well aware.
- We have many people who love it and some who don’t like it. We could’ve just copied the UniV3 front-end and reskinned it like many others out there but we chose to build it from ground up. Nonetheless, our UI is something we’re not very fond of (mostly in terms of backend) and it’s an area we’re planning to improve vastly as a top priority.
- Solidly offers users significant gas savings versus any other AMM in the market. This is why we see pools with 80k TVL pulling in 1.9m volume. Solidly is serving the very lower bound of the market segment, smaller fish swapping $100, we’re giving them multi % savings on every swap made, so Solidly is already playing a pivotal role in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
- Point me to one protocol that doesn’t have technical problems, the important part is that we always quickly resolve issues when they arise. Some hickups are expected when working on the cutting-edge.
- Not sure who you are referring to, all of our dozen integrations prove the opposite. Given, having strong opinions is not always popular, but sometimes necessary.
- We made a once-off joke that many people enjoyed and were laughing about with us in DMs or even the general chat, even well respected and big partners enjoyed that announcement, but of course there are always some party poopers. Out of the 1000+ twitter post we made, naturally you pick the one exception where we got a little spicy, if anything that show a bias.
Answering these 2 together:
Very happy to add context to this. First of all Alex, we adjusted our swap fee to various market participants, as you’re surely aware, Uniswap isn’t the only DEX on Arbitrum, so once again, your bias becomes evident.
Let’s dive into the pool you’ve shown: USDC(bridged)/USDC(native)
For example Ramses has a swap fee of 0.005%, at times they go as low as 0.001%, so our 0.002% don’t seem abnormal, especially given that this is a hyper-correlated pair.
We seem to be out-performing Ramses by a factor of 2.16x, taking into account the lower swap fee. So every dollar on the Solidly pool creates 2.16x more value to liquidity providers and the Solidly ecosystem.
Just for clarification, this is Ramses’s best performing pool in terms of volume, it makes up 20% of their daily volume.
Here’s the comparison between Ramses and Solidly of that same pool, the lower swap fee is taken into account in “Efficiency Factor”.
The results are astonishing, given that we get no large swaps because of our small pool size. So you might be wondering, how this is possible and where all this volume come from?
Traders with small budgets.
Solidly serves the gargantuan horde of smaller fish by making DeFi even more accessible to them, which is 100% in line with the vision and the raison d’être of Arbitrum and frankly any L2. So it’s very much in the interest of the foundation to support this vision of making DeFi as accessible as possible and Solidly uniquely offers the solution for it.
When someone swaps $10 USDC to $10 of another currency, currently they will lose potentially several dollars to gas and swap fees, Solidly manages to reduce this to a minimum, which is why we see these astronomic efficiency ratios and aggregators and arbitrage bots pick up on it, increasing overall sequencer revenue, transactions (one of Arbitrum’s KPIs) and overall activity.
I’ll gladly repost the gas comparisons of Solidly on L1 and all major L2’s, so you can see just how significant the difference is to other Dexes on the market, thanks for letting me provide more color on this.
2 Likes
Hi all,
Given the volume of replies, I’ve added a +1 hour time delay to all new posts. Let’s stay on topic for the thread.
Also a back-and-forth is not warranted here. There is no need to compare protocols with each other. This proposal, alongside other proposals, should be able to stand and be reviewed on their own merit.
I see four people currently replying. I will lock this thread for a few days and contact LTIPP organisers about what to do next.
6 Likes
Hello. Jojo, advisor for solidly. Would just like to add that there is a modification in the first post after the deadline. This has been due to the inability, for moderation reasons, for the author to post inside the deadline, and doesn’t breach the rule of the program because all these adds were posted in the LTIP discord a few hours before the limit (and also don’t change neither the amount nor the mechanism of the requested grant, they are just additional info regarding performances).
2 Likes
I’m glad the thread and been reopened to have an opportunity to respond to Seraph’s accusations of slander here. To use his own words when commenting on his competitors proposal:
It is honestly quite disappointing and surprising he is choosing to continue to be dishonest with the DAO about something that is common knowledge to us in the broader Solidly community. That the former head of Solidly “Evawat” and the current head of Solidly “Seraph” are the same person and that he is so desperate to conceal this that he is willing make wild accusations about his ex-team.
Three of his ex-collegues, including one of his former lead developers and his primary financiers have confirmed that Seraph and Evawat are the same person. Documentation of this has been provided to @stonecoldpat and broader Arbitrum DAO to this extent, one example below:
Even one of his most vocal supporters and prominent community members has confirmed it:
When Seraph learned that his ex team members were going on the record confirming his dishonesty, instead of acknowledging and apologizing, he decided to personally accuse almost every member of the original Solidly Team of crimes to try to undermine their credibility.
If Seraph really wants to continue to hold to his denial, I’ve suggested he take the tact of providing some tangible counter evidence rather attacking those whistleblowing by addressing the following:
Instead, I expect him to try to continue to conduct himself in a dishonest way with the DAO in violation of the Community and STIP guidelines and make the kind of personal threats he is famous for in our community:
Whether or not this is the kind of behavior the DAO wants to reward with a grant worth over a million dollars, nearly 2x the amount of TVL Solidly has on Arbitrum, I leave up to them. 
3 Likes
Not the place for personal attacks, when the topic of discussion is the grant proposal
also as part of the grant the team will have to dox themselves, so identity issues should not matter (unless you want to suggest that seraph is kim jong un or putin)
if seraph is evawat (which i don’t know if he is) what would that matter? Only thing I know about evawat was a proposal on DEUS DAO that passed after a vote, and i don’t know of any reasons for people to call him a serial scammer (which was said in some of the deleted posts which were again attacking seraph personally).
2 Likes
We already went over this topic with @stonecoldpat in our group messages - which of course you leaked against @stonecoldpat and mine’s consent to Twitter, so thanks for that first of all.
Secondly, Patrick already warned you with a ban should you continue to post irrelevant off-topic accusations against Solidly Labs - your glaring violation of that speaks for itself.
Thirdly, let’s assume for a second that your non-evidence (hearsay to be exact) is true. What exactly are you accusing Solidly Labs of?
Your attacks seems to be spitefully personal and it’s very obvious to everyone. It shines a bad light on you, and if anything demonstrates a deeply rooted angst of us continuing to out-compete your protocol. But for whatever irrational reason this wouldn’t even really affect you, since we’re on the Arbitrum forums, and not Optimism or Base forums, where you’re our competitor.
I am once again asking @stonecoldpat to remove all these discussions (including this post) as they are off-topic and have zero relevancy to the proposal, as Alex is glaringly obviously trying to derail this proposal. He’s not making any claims of fraud or other risks, only ad hominem, thus irrelevant.
Hi all,
It is not my place to be judge on who is right and who is wrong. My only job is to ensure the discourse on the forum provides enough data for delegates to make a judgement.
With the above in mind, I’d like to discontinue the discussions between Alex/Seraph/Dog/others since there is now sufficient discourse on the forum. I’m going to heavily moderate this thread and delete anything that is 1) continuing the previous discussions and 2) not focused on the proposal’s content.
I hope everyone respects this and keeps with the maximum politeness policy.
6 Likes