###Support izumi Finance as the official Uniswap V3 Liquidity Mining Platform
izumi Finance is the first protocol to support Uniswap V3 “non-homogeneous” liquidity mining and extend concentrated liquidity service for multi-chains. izumi provides “Programable Liquidity as a Service” (PLaaS) based on Uniswap V3, with innovatively designed liquidity mining modules of “Concentrated liquidity mining” model for stable assets with a fixed price and “One-sided non-impermanent loss Mining” model for non-stable tokens. These structured models would support any blockchain project to better implement liquidity incentives with much higher capital efficiency and enable liquidity providers to earn extra rewards.
Note：izumi will Launch the LiquidBox on December 21st, so this is only a Temperature Check proposal and is subject to change after izumi's product launch.
Project teams and community DAO can set up pairs and liquidity pools based on Uniswap V3 to attract liquidity more efficiently by offering rewards in a limited range and different rewards in different price ranges. izumi Finance provides a wide range of liquidity options to meet the needs of project teams and communities.
Each block in the (0.95p,1.05p) price range earns 10 tokens from the stablecoin and pegged-asset issuer. Izumi evaluates the total effective liquidity in the (0.95p,1.05p) price range and assigns it linearly according to the proportion held by each LP, thus attracting liquidity to this range to achieve minimum slippage.
Note: If the LP provides liquidity in a price range that is over-covering (0.95p,1.05p), only the liquidity within (0.95p,1.05p) is calculated as the weight of the incentive allocation; if the NFT price range offered by the LP is inside (0.95p,1.05p), such as (0.98p,1.02p), no incentive is given or a weight penalty factor is applied.
Analysis: When compared to the xy=k model, the 0.95–1.05 interval is over 50 times more capital efficient, requiring only one-fifth of the TVL and incentives for the same slippage.
Option 2: "One-sided non-impermanent loss mining model" for emerging-asset to make liquidity mining more attractive when price continues going up
izumi LiquidBox allows liquidity mining incentive tokens in the current price range to compensate for the impermanent loss caused by price change within a corresponding time interval.
Similar to the traditional xy=k model, the LP also puts half value of the USDC and half value of the project tokens into the izumi LiquidBox to start liquidity mining with one click.
However, in order to avoid the "Pool 2 dilemma" caused by the traditional xy=k model (i.e. LP puts all USDCs as potential buy orders and project tokens as potential sell orders into the liquidity pool of the trading pair, causing LPs to passively sell their project tokens and suffer from impermanent losses when the price goes up. It also increases passive selling pressure on the project side, preventing price increase and creating a "lose-lose" situation.
izumi LiquidBox innovated the "one-sided non-impermanent loss" model based on Uniswap V3, which puts the LP's USDC into the (Pa,Pc), just below the current price Pc, and puts the LP’s project tokens into the staking mining instead of into the trading pool (i.e. above Pc as potential sellers), thus creating a model of "stronger buying than selling", which is more conducive to a price increase.
For example, if the current price of XYZ token is 3 USDC, LP will deposit 1k XYZ and 3k USDC into the izumi platform in one click to mine and receive a 90% APR on the total principal (similar to the Sushiswap xy=k model). izumi manages this by placing 3000 USDC in the Uniswap V3 (0,3) price range to provide potential buying orders when the price declines. The 1k XYZ is placed in the staking module to lock in liquidity, but not in Uniswap V3, so it won't be sold passively when the price rises, resulting in no impermanent loss or passive selling pressure on the project side.
Analysis: When the price goes up, there is no impermanent loss, and when the price goes down, the percentage of impermanent loss for LP (Pa=0) is the same as xy=k. The overall distributed incentives for the project are the same as in the xy=k model. In the up cycle, passive sell liquidity is low, whereas in the down cycle, buying support is consistent (if Pa is greater than 0 then the buying power is also enhanced).
Link to snapshot: (include link)
Link to any additional reading:
###Support izumi Finance as the official Uniswap V3 Liquidity Mining Platform
izumi Finance is the first protocol to support Uniswap V3 “non-homogeneous” liquidity mining and extend concentrated liquidity service for multi-chains. izumi provides “Programable Liquidity as a Service” (PLaaS) based on Uniswap V3, with innovatively designed liquidity mining modules of “Concentrated liquidity mining” model for stable assets with a fixed price and “One-sided non-impermanent loss Mining” model for non-stable tokens. These structured models would support any blockchain project to better implement liquidity incentives with much higher capital efficiency and enable liquidity providers to earn extra rewards.
Note：izumi will Launch the LiquidBox on December 21st, so this is only a Temperature Check proposal and is subject to change after izumi's product launch.
Project teams and community DAO can set up pairs and liquidity pools based on Uniswap V3 to attract liquidity more efficiently by offering rewards in a limited range and different rewards in different price ranges. izumi Finance provides a wide range of liquidity options to meet the needs of project teams and communities.
Each block in the (0.95p,1.05p) price range earns 10 tokens from the stablecoin and pegged-asset issuer. Izumi evaluates the total effective liquidity in the (0.95p,1.05p) price range and assigns it linearly according to the proportion held by each LP, thus attracting liquidity to this range to achieve minimum slippage.
Note: If the LP provides liquidity in a price range that is over-covering (0.95p,1.05p), only the liquidity within (0.95p,1.05p) is calculated as the weight of the incentive allocation; if the NFT price range offered by the LP is inside (0.95p,1.05p), such as (0.98p,1.02p), no incentive is given or a weight penalty factor is applied.
Analysis: When compared to the xy=k model, the 0.95–1.05 interval is over 50 times more capital efficient, requiring only one-fifth of the TVL and incentives for the same slippage.
Option 2: "One-sided non-impermanent loss mining model" for emerging-asset to make liquidity mining more attractive when price continues going up
izumi LiquidBox allows liquidity mining incentive tokens in the current price range to compensate for the impermanent loss caused by price change within a corresponding time interval.
Similar to the traditional xy=k model, the LP also puts half value of the USDC and half value of the project tokens into the izumi LiquidBox to start liquidity mining with one click.
However, in order to avoid the "Pool 2 dilemma" caused by the traditional xy=k model (i.e. LP puts all USDCs as potential buy orders and project tokens as potential sell orders into the liquidity pool of the trading pair, causing LPs to passively sell their project tokens and suffer from impermanent losses when the price goes up. It also increases passive selling pressure on the project side, preventing price increase and creating a "lose-lose" situation.
izumi LiquidBox innovated the "one-sided non-impermanent loss" model based on Uniswap V3, which puts the LP's USDC into the (Pa,Pc), just below the current price Pc, and puts the LP’s project tokens into the staking mining instead of into the trading pool (i.e. above Pc as potential sellers), thus creating a model of "stronger buying than selling", which is more conducive to a price increase.
For example, if the current price of XYZ token is 3 USDC, LP will deposit 1k XYZ and 3k USDC into the izumi platform in one click to mine and receive a 90% APR on the total principal (similar to the Sushiswap xy=k model). izumi manages this by placing 3000 USDC in the Uniswap V3 (0,3) price range to provide potential buying orders when the price declines. The 1k XYZ is placed in the staking module to lock in liquidity, but not in Uniswap V3, so it won't be sold passively when the price rises, resulting in no impermanent loss or passive selling pressure on the project side.
Analysis: When the price goes up, there is no impermanent loss, and when the price goes down, the percentage of impermanent loss for LP (Pa=0) is the same as xy=k. The overall distributed incentives for the project are the same as in the xy=k model. In the up cycle, passive sell liquidity is low, whereas in the down cycle, buying support is consistent (if Pa is greater than 0 then the buying power is also enhanced).
Link to snapshot: (include link)
Link to any additional reading:
Hey, really appreciate your advice!
We are reaching out to the team but the reply is pretty slow, so we decide to put the proposal for a temperature check for now.
Wish we could get more discussion with the official team later.
Hey, really appreciate your advice!
We are reaching out to the team but the reply is pretty slow, so we decide to put the proposal for a temperature check for now.
Wish we could get more discussion with the official team later.
I don't really see why you'd need to first communicate or get more discussion with the official team, for this Temperature Check.
From what I can see, the Temperature Check has closed overwhelmingly Against, because of "No" votes from two addresses with significant delegated UNIs, namely she256.eth (I think) and t11s.eth, without any involvement/voting from "the official team". And even if there had been 0 "No" votes, the "Yes" votes (10.2k) wouldn't have been enough to meet the Temperature Check quorum of 25k. (I know it can be argued that potential "Yes" voters might not have bothered after seeing the number of "No" votes, but I can only look at and comment on the actual voted outcome numbers)
I don't really see why you'd need to first communicate or get more discussion with the official team, for this Temperature Check.
From what I can see, the Temperature Check has closed overwhelmingly Against, because of "No" votes from two addresses with significant delegated UNIs, namely she256.eth (I think) and t11s.eth, without any involvement/voting from "the official team". And even if there had been 0 "No" votes, the "Yes" votes (10.2k) wouldn't have been enough to meet the Temperature Check quorum of 25k. (I know it can be argued that potential "Yes" voters might not have bothered after seeing the number of "No" votes, but I can only look at and comment on the actual voted outcome numbers)
In my opinion, clearer communications and discussions should/could have been made with the Uniswap community (note: not just "the official team") via various channels including this site, before you decide whether and how to formulate and submit the Temperature Check for a Snapshot vote.
I voted "No" (albeit with my very limited UNI tokens) because from your post I just do not see why Uniswap (both Governance community and Labs) should choose to partner with a singular platform for liquidity mining related operations? It should be up to individual projects (with tokens for which they want to encourage liquidity provision on Uniswap), and not Uniswap, to decide and choose whether they want to use a particular solution to help with their liquidity mining efforts.
Overall, personally I highly doubt "more discussion with the official team" would have changed the trajectory and outcome of this.
Nonetheless, all the best to your project and solution(s) though!
Hi, my friend, I think you can first communicate with the official team. At present, the number of governance votes in the official hands is still dominant and determines the governance results. Many people may not understand Izumi finance, and you need to popularize the benefits and risks of cooperation.
I don't really see why you'd need to first communicate or get more discussion with the official team, for this Temperature Check.
From what I can see, the Temperature Check has closed overwhelmingly Against, because of "No" votes from two addresses with significant delegated UNIs, namely she256.eth (I think) and t11s.eth, without any involvement/voting from "the official team". And even if there had been 0 "No" votes, the "Yes" votes (10.2k) wouldn't have been enough to meet the Temperature Check quorum of 25k. (I know it can be argued that potential "Yes" voters might not have bothered after seeing the number of "No" votes, but I can only look at and comment on the actual voted outcome numbers)
I don't really see why you'd need to first communicate or get more discussion with the official team, for this Temperature Check.
From what I can see, the Temperature Check has closed overwhelmingly Against, because of "No" votes from two addresses with significant delegated UNIs, namely she256.eth (I think) and t11s.eth, without any involvement/voting from "the official team". And even if there had been 0 "No" votes, the "Yes" votes (10.2k) wouldn't have been enough to meet the Temperature Check quorum of 25k. (I know it can be argued that potential "Yes" voters might not have bothered after seeing the number of "No" votes, but I can only look at and comment on the actual voted outcome numbers)
In my opinion, clearer communications and discussions should/could have been made with the Uniswap community (note: not just "the official team") via various channels including this site, before you decide whether and how to formulate and submit the Temperature Check for a Snapshot vote.
I voted "No" (albeit with my very limited UNI tokens) because from your post I just do not see why Uniswap (both Governance community and Labs) should choose to partner with a singular platform for liquidity mining related operations? It should be up to individual projects (with tokens for which they want to encourage liquidity provision on Uniswap), and not Uniswap, to decide and choose whether they want to use a particular solution to help with their liquidity mining efforts.
Overall, personally I highly doubt "more discussion with the official team" would have changed the trajectory and outcome of this.
Nonetheless, all the best to your project and solution(s) though!
Hi, my friend, I think you can first communicate with the official team. At present, the number of governance votes in the official hands is still dominant and determines the governance results. Many people may not understand Izumi finance, and you need to popularize the benefits and risks of cooperation.
