As I'm posting this on behalf of someone else and I'm sure I'll get questions:
My personal stance is that if we do this, we should deploy DAO funds on ETH to ensure liquidity. I'm still working on trying to get the SPS:ETH v3 pool with SushiSwap bonds live. That would be the ideal pool to deploy DAO funds in if we're going that route. Just my 2 cents.
My Lord this seems like a slap in the face for those who've faithfully held SPS:WETH during the bear market, enduring severe impermanent loss -- while giving everyone their lovely exit liquidity. I must be misunderstanding something.
Is the hope that removing the one small positive for those trapped in the SPS:WETH pool will help our ever-inflating SPS' price rise? This sucks because anyone not in the pool will have no problem voting for this, while the pool participants will clearly have no chance to compete. Lovely.
This pre-proposal request must have been by someone who doesn't know this pain, and just wants SPS to perform better in theory. This shoves a middle finger at those who've held long term, hoping for some sort of material rebalance -- while also making their motivation for future LP involvement virtually zero.
Just for kicks, I reinvested almost all of the LP rewards into max gold cards, which I rent to help those potentially voting for this compete. A symbolic message like this makes me want to instantly stop all reinvestment to focus on ETH recovery.
As for DAO funds: we should, or we will?
My thoughts are that if we cut this inflation, we should deploy DAO funds on ETH to ensure liquidity. I have no ability to say "we will" as that's a DAO decision. As far as the impermanent loss argument, we've been printing 1.3 million per month to this pool and it's one of the weakest performing we have. I can see why people feel the way they do. I personally was looking for a better compromise option, but I can't refuse someone's proposal request based on my personal agreement. I voted against this for what it's worth.
For those who feel it's a terribly performing pool, wasn't it essentially created during a bear market, and then sustained mainly during a deep bear market? I feel that to be the case, while unsurprisingly few were investing ETH or any external funds into the game. FWIW, I was using the pool along through this time, and with a significant amount of funds.
Bear market performance is generally not the pool's fault, and definitely not a fair shot for judging its value. Many other LPs are between in-game or HIVE assets people slosh around, so they'll naturally perform better. I think those hold significantly less value once real money tries to get in the game.
This was a true external ETH-facing pool (and key to connecting ETH and HIVE assets). This is ultimately where real money can flow in -- versus extremely micro-cap internal LPs that others want to maintain -- presumably because they can keep sloshing their internal funds around for yield. Ironically, we need external pools to be stronger instead...
Removing the incentives here will also simply let those hang out to dry in it in hopes that SPS miraculously catches up and passes ETH price appreciation... all risk and no reward -- just to try to break even. Feels like a bait and switch. People made significant investment decisions based on the reasonable expectation that at least "some" type of SPS yield was issued, not "none" now, if the DAO doesn't support it.
I also interpret this underperformance is a testament to how little our player pool was willing to invest in the game using ETH-based funds during the bear market. Not the pool's fault. In reality, we can't expect lots of new players during this time. Realistically, this probably won't be the same during a real bull market, where price action and marketing efforts are going to drive inflows of legitimate capital.
Wouldn't it be ideal to keep this pool strong and incentivized for that? Killing one of the funnels and hurting those who got destroyed with major impermanent loss from the onset, just because some random person decides to have you put up a pre-proposal that screams "save SPS inflation" since it wasn't a high performer during a bear market. Most people aren't in the pool so they will think for their own bags. Seems like we're simply going to shoot ourselves in the foot. As one of the top card holders in the game -- it makes me need to figure out how to start extracting funds for ETH versus putting more in.
Loyalty should be rewarded. Allowing others to be financially punished after having the reasonable assumption that yield would not be reduced to literally "none," is infuriating.
Thanks for your reply.
I voted against with the little SPS at my disposal. Feels like yet another punition for those that did effort and lost money to maintain the game during the bear, which is unnaceptable.
I'm not involved in it, but removing something just when it might be actually useful as bridge to feed fresh money to the game from ETH feels wrong to me.
I can only support such option with the commitment of DAO funds funding the ETH pool.
It is the primary on/off for me because I'm US based.
Bridge fees have become too expensive to start at BNB and make my way to ETH for use on US chains.
Clearly, it seems most of the current community don't have that problem (perhaps their state allows Binance.us) or they remain 100% in crypto - where BNB is the optimal chain to launch in/out of SPL.
Finally - with the other ETH based pool losing funding, it seems we are abandoning ETH chain LPs, yet a major asset RUNI is ETH based. Seems short sighted.
*for use on US exchanges
Yep, as I stated above, I can't support it without the DAO committing to putting liquidity on ETH. I do think the cost of this pool and it's utilization are extremely poor so I can see why the value proposition isn't there. That said, the DAO could deploy like 500k or a million dollars into an ETH:SPS v3 pool and just earn whatever fees and eat whatever IL. As is, I think this is unlikely to pass.