Very good proposal! Would be very beneficial to proceed - upvote from me granted! 
1 Like
fully agree that the liquidity avenue is best aligned with individual projects and with sources of liquidity, such as launchpads. This would enable the project to gather a higher chance of attracting and retaining new and well placed tokens.
Fee sharing sounds a great idea. People are not able to afford fees these days. Thus they always look for cheaper alternatives. It would also enable people to have an interest in attracting liquidity to Astrosport.
1 Like
I am a user who joined the project early when your project works on the Sei Network chain. I joined the testnet sections and joined Zealy very early on. Recently I found that Zealy tasks have almost no updates, only a few links with tw are updated, the testnet parts are similarly not updated much, the testnet part is quite good, the experience is quite good. smooth. Hopefully it will be more of an experience with Sei himself approaching and hope the project will reward some early and loyal participants. Thanks a lot!
1 Like
Good morning.
Lolo_esdid from Eclipse.
Reading the proposals launched, and the comments, it seems to me that they are two different cases that must have two differentiated treatments.
- On the one hand, the assets whose counterpart in a LP is a stable currency. In this case, buying the 5% fee with the project seems to me to be a very good proposal.
- On the other, those assets whose volatility is exposed to a higher margin that they cannot obtain without being a stable currency. It also seems very reasonable to me to make a separate group, because, surely, there will be many like that.
Regarding whether 5% is enough or interesting, I understand that there is an economic study behind it based on previously obtained and extrapolated data. To this, nothing to comment…
Well, it’s just my opinion, quite in line with the proposal.
Thank you so much
1 Like
I am a person who is very interested in the project. I want to ask the question why is required to submit a proposal for each launch could end up with a governance bottleneck, and fairly difficult when launching multiple projects inside a month
1 Like
5% maybe low yeah, could maybe do 10.
1 Like
I think the scenario for launching a new token could be a surprise in the sense that something amazing and unexpected will happen, because what? see the enthusiasm of the community and the enthusiasm of the entire team which is always on fire, although there is a little doubt about Optimization in the launch model, but I think it’s normal
2 Likes
While the proposed Incentive Alignment proposal for Astroport appears to have several benefits and aligns with the platform’s objectives, there are some potential issues and considerations that should be taken into account:
- Overreliance on Fee Sharing: The proposal introduces fee sharing as a way to incentivize projects to use Astroport, but there could be a risk of relying too heavily on this mechanism. Depending solely on fee sharing might not be sufficient to attract and retain projects in the long run, especially if competing platforms offer more diverse or attractive incentives.
- Complexity and Governance Burden: The governance process for requesting swap fee sharing might add complexity and administrative burden for both the projects and the Astroport community. This could result in delays or inefficiencies in processing requests and reaching consensus, potentially discouraging some projects from participating.
- Token Economics and Sustainability: Sharing up to 5% of specific Astroport pool swap fees in perpetuity might raise questions about the long-term sustainability of such an arrangement. The economic impact on the ASTRO token, as well as potential token dilution concerns, should be carefully evaluated.
- Potential for Manipulation: Incentive mechanisms like fee sharing can be susceptible to manipulation or gaming by projects trying to maximize their rewards without providing genuine value to the ecosystem. Measures to prevent abuse and ensure fair allocation of fees need to be implemented.
- Impact on Liquidity Providers: While the proposal aims to attract more liquidity to Astroport, the impact on liquidity providers (LPs) should also be considered. Changes in fee distribution might affect LP incentives and behaviour, potentially leading to unintended consequences.
- Competition and Adoption: Other AMMs and DeFi platforms may also introduce their own attractive incentive models to attract projects and liquidity, making the space highly competitive. Ensuring Astroport remains a preferred choice for projects might require continuous assessment and adaptation.
1 Like
While a 30% incentive might seem appealing from the perspective of long-term sustainability, there are several reasons why a 50% incentive should not be dismissed outright and may be necessary in certain contexts:
- Encouraging adoption: Higher incentives, like 50%, can be instrumental in encouraging initial adoption of a product or service. This is especially crucial in competitive markets where customers have several alternatives. A 30% incentive might not be compelling enough to persuade potential customers to choose Astro over other offerings.
- Market penetration: In a nascent market or for a new product, a 50% incentive can significantly boost market penetration and create a critical mass of users. This can lead to network effects and positive feedback loops, which are essential for sustainable growth in the long run.
- Rapid growth: If Astro aims to achieve rapid growth and expansion, a higher incentive may be necessary to capture a larger market share quickly. A 30% incentive might not provide the necessary momentum for the company to scale and achieve its business goals effectively.
- Competing with established players: If Astro is competing against well-established competitors, a 30% incentive might not be sufficient to attract customers away from those established brands. A higher incentive can act as a differentiator and convince potential customers to try out Astro’s offerings.
- Customer loyalty: A 50% incentive can lead to a stronger sense of customer loyalty and retention. When customers feel they are getting a significant advantage or discount, they are more likely to stay with the brand in the long term, thereby contributing to sustainability.
- Marketing impact: A 50% incentive is more likely to create a buzz and attract media attention, leading to increased brand visibility and word-of-mouth marketing. This heightened visibility can have a positive impact on the overall growth and reputation of Astro.
- A phased approach: Instead of committing to a static incentive rate, Astro could adopt a phased approach, starting with a 50% incentive for a limited period and then gradually tapering it down to 30% as the brand gains traction and market share.
In conclusion, while a 30% incentive may seem attractive from a long-term sustainability standpoint, a higher incentive like 50% can play a pivotal role in driving initial adoption, market penetration, and rapid growth. It can also act as a powerful marketing tool and help Astro establish a strong foothold in the market. By considering a phased approach and carefully monitoring its impact, Astro can strike the right balance between short-term growth and long-term sustainability.
1 Like
- Clarity in Proposal Language: The proposal language should be clear and concise, ensuring that all terms and conditions are easily understandable. It would be beneficial to have a glossary explaining any technical terms specific to the crypto space for those who might not be familiar with them.
- Sustainable Liquidity Mining: While the proposal aims to attract liquidity by sharing swap fees, it should also address the concern of sustainability for liquidity mining rewards. How does the proposal plan to incentivize liquidity providers in the long run without draining value from the projects? A clear and well-thought-out strategy for liquidity incentives is crucial.
- Ensuring Fairness and Transparency: To avoid potential manipulation, it’s important to implement a transparent and tamper-proof mechanism for selecting projects eligible for swap fee sharing. Projects that meet the criteria should be able to participate fairly, and the governance process should be free from undue influence.
- Evaluating Potential Downsides: The proposal should carefully assess any potential downsides or risks to the Astroport protocol or community. It should consider possible negative consequences of sharing fees and propose measures to mitigate them.
- Impact on Existing Projects: How will this proposal impact existing projects on Astroport? Will it create any conflicts or issues with ongoing initiatives? Understanding the implications for current participants is essential.
- Community Feedback and Iteration: The proposal should actively seek feedback from the Astroport community and iterate based on the input received. Community involvement is crucial for making informed decisions.
- Long-Term Vision: The proposal should outline a clear long-term vision for Astroport and how this incentive alignment fits into that vision. This will help stakeholders understand the strategic direction of the protocol.
- Education and Awareness: Ensuring that the Astroport community is well-informed about the proposal is essential. Consider running educational campaigns to explain the benefits and implications of the proposed changes.
- Implementation Details: The proposal should provide clear and detailed steps for implementing the swap fee sharing mechanism. It should include technical aspects, potential smart contract changes, and estimated timelines for deployment.
- Security Audits: Before moving to on-chain voting, it is crucial to conduct thorough security audits of the proposed changes. This will help identify and address any potential vulnerabilities or risks.
1 Like
What kind of time frame or milestones do you foresee for implementing and testing this alternative launch model?
percentage of swap fees the project would like to receive from each pool listed above; each percentage must be lower than or equal to 5%
Consider implementing a transparent monitoring mechanism to track the success and impact of shared swap fees on both Astroport’s liquidity and the participating projects.
To address potential concerns of fee-sharing affecting Astroport’s revenues, you might explore implementing dynamic fee-sharing percentages that adapt to changing conditions.
1 Like
The idea is interesting, but it is not clear from the article why exactly 5%, why not 3% or 33% or some exact amount in dollars? I think it makes sense to describe the calculation formula.
I don’t have any suggestions. I think it’s running fine.
I think the scenario for launching a new token could be a surprise in the sense that something amazing and unexpected will happen, because what? see the enthusiasm of the community and the enthusiasm of the entire team which is always on fire, although there is a little doubt about Optimization in the launch model, but I think it’s normal
This is very cool as i see, Low gas fees will attract more clients from all other launchpad proejcts.
Leverage diverse incentives, consider higher fee sharing for investor appeal, collaborate with blockchain ecosystems like Sei, and establish a robust governance process. Prioritize sustainability, prevent manipulation, and adapt to evolving market dynamics for long-term success in a competitive DeFi landscape… Astroport looks like a great vison project
This is a really good proposal
But I suggest a slight increase from 5%
Say 7-10% will be great
This is a solid proposal, and we’re wholeheartedly behind it! Regarding the percentage—which seems low to some of the commentators—why not consider increasing it only for pools with high trading volumes? The higher the volume, the greater the percentage, making the model more dynamic.
Secondly, it’s truly inspiring to see the level of involvement in this discussion. This kind of active conversation is what makes a community strong and a project successful. Keep the ideas and feedback coming! 