In Sunday’s DAO call, we touched the topic of grape-access only recognizing Raydium’s LP token, and had a short discussion on if promoting this and expanding to other LPs would be in the interest of Grape. (Given the inherent complexities, we decided to move this discussion in this forum.)
I’d argue it is, as having more community member provide liquidity…
- ensures sufficient liquidity for large trades with little slippage is available (atm a “Class A membership”-swap has 0.36% price impact)
- let’s the community take part in Grape farm emissions
- provides a higher level of stickiness vs. holding the token in the wallet
I understand there are technical hurdles & resource constraints, but would also like to understand more broadly where the hesitancy on this comes from
(Note: I missed the first hour of the call, and this was one of the first topics that were discussed after I joined. So please feel free to also add context in case I missed something.)
If there are not so many technical issues with this I totally agree. But I dont know how much work this will ne for the developers.
Would love to see a single GRAPE pool, even at a lower %, it would be awesome knowing it’s sitting away earning something. Knowing COPE for gate access sitting on Mango is nice, even though it’s at a lower rate.
i’m assuming there will be some work required from developers to make this happen - it feels like it should be lower priority. someone had mentioned on the DAO call that it is also complicated because computing the exact amount across pools will become tricky. in general, i feel our focus should first be on maximising the work output from the community - everything else is a short term distraction at best. the highest return for all holders will be generated from growing community gdp exponentially.
agree with barndog, eventually - it would be nice to have a single pool even if at a lower rate- it’ll maximise liquidity in the pool, reduce overhead both on developers and stakers and generate some yield.
I think adding Grape LP tokens on other protocols will benefit the Grape as it results in more accessibility and less price impact on other dexes (Orca for example), but one might say that Grape is a membership token and users are not supposed to farm on Grape token and get APR. I think we need to address this question in the first place, do we want Grape to be a membership token that is not supposed to make revenue in farming?? I obviously think in this case we will miss many Defi lovers.
I personally find it wasteful to have any coin in my portfolio that is not earning interest. I even think about selling the ones that I can’t stake anywhere unless they offer utility that I consider is worth keeping it. That is the whole appeal of crypto and defi. One thing that I found cool in the Grape community was that members could stake in the Raydium LP and still have their memberships according to the number of Grapes held. Twice the utility!
I think within Grape we all have our favorite channels, mine revolve more around the alpha chats where defi is a big topic. We’re always trying to find a way to optimize our investments and when Orca opened their pools with twice the yield than on Raydium and it was mentionned that our membership holdings would not be considered unless they were on Raydium, I found it to be slightly contrary to the mindset of the Grape alpha seekers.
I agree will all the points that tmnxeq mentionned. LPs create better liquidity, there’s benefits for the community and it does create a higher level of stickiness.
"i’m assuming there will be some work required from developers to make this happen - it feels like it should be lower priority. someone had mentioned on the DAO call that it is also complicated because computing the exact amount across pools will become tricky. in general, i feel our focus should first be on maximising the work output from the community - everything else is a short term distraction at best. the highest return for all holders will be generated from growing community gdp exponentially.
agree with barndog, eventually - it would be nice to have a single pool even if at a lower rate- it’ll maximise liquidity in the pool, reduce overhead both on developers and stakers and generate some yield."
this reply mirrors my opinions completely. it is not a trivial undertaking, and, for a membership token, not essential.
if this were “click a button and done” id be totally for it, but the effort required isnt a good priority today
I would support the idea of a single pool, even if we’d to supply the initial liquidity ourselves. An additional incentive to hold a greater amount of $GREAP is always a good idea. Holding a token that does ‘nothing’ and only sits in my wallet just doesn’t feel right. Even if I know that a low % doesn’t make this much of a difference and that generating value through farming isn’t the purpose of $GRAPE.
I’d argue that this is a common feeling in this space and that even a low %-pool would help increase the likelihood for people to hold a much greater amount of $GRAPE.
Agree with @Barndog we should have in the future single staking $GRAPE most probably in our future updated dashboard even at a low %APY, that way pretty sure it would be pretty easy to verify all the holders who wishes to stake and be verified at the same time. Dunno if bringing a lot of $GRAPE to single staking will take out of liquidity from the pools, dunno might be wrong.
@Madivaan Verifying $GRAPE on others protocols is always a good ideia, what i assume is the difficulty to access the amount of LP tokens you need to have to receive the membership since.
@CryptoPawz That statement where you “Holding a token that does ‘nothing’ and only sits in my wallet just doesn’t feel right.” you know is not true. After all, just by holding you get the benefits of being able to access higher level channels, able to participate in specific classed events and receive monthly emissions.
Just to make sure I understand, when people are talking about “single staking GRAPE”, they mean single sided staking yeah (i.e. not providing liquidity)? Holding GRAPE in your wallet already is single sided staking though, with 12% APR. If anything, the problem isn’t that we don’t have single sided staking but rather that people don’t know about it People aren’t used to getting tokens just for holding tokens; normally they have to lock them up in a smart contract for that. I bet a lot of non-Grape members also don’t know that the required amount for membership increases each month. Is there some kind of central repository with all this information? I think that is what we need.
I agree with @durden, i don’t think we need another single staking when we have emissions going out monthly. I mean that already serves as single staking even though people don’t understand it yet.
I guess others may be thinking in terms of GRAPE that people hold beyond the class requirements (e.g. more than 20200), which technically don’t receive rewards. But I don’t see a reason to incentivize people to hold more GRAPE than a class requires.
I think GRAPE amounts will be more important if/when we use GRAPE for voting on-chain – in combination with some sort of activity metric
The current repo for all this data is the gitbook – its the documents tab on the grapes.network website – Overview - Grape Network
Since this came up just now over on Mean DAO AMA and I’d forget until tomorrow, I’ll add it here.
@Durden, you asked ‘How about if you are staking or LPing for a partner token, will you still receive the airdrop?’ and Michel from Mean answered, that this would be up to Grape.
I figure, that many partner projects would appreciate being able to track tokens across the whole Solana ecosystem. We only talked in this discussion about being able to track $GRAPE in LPs but we also need to consider our partners and their plans. So maybe we should reevaluate this topic.
Right. If each project provided an API for tracking deposits on their protocol, would integrations be much easier? @BillysDiscord
This would definitely be helpful