POL Diversification and Deployment (Q1 2023)

what about use ibtc? from interlay? with a little amount Would it be possible to place a vault to mint that amount of ibtc?

and these may or may not be linear, right? I mean the order, and as the situation is evaluated

Overall I like the idea and the process very much. Despite challenging conditions, Hydra is making good progress. I appreciate the fact that you involve the community in the decision-making process.

As for now, I would like to ask you about one idea regarding initial liquidity.

The proposal states: "Deploy up to $500k worth of HDX from the HydraDX Treasury into the Omnipool."

What do you think about seeding the initial HDX liquidity from the community members willing to sell their tokens? Instead of raising it from the treasury.

Gearbox protocol decided to launch in this way recently. (details: https://medium.com/gearbox-protocol/gear-cidered-liquidity-launch-explainer-37e5882f4d91) Of course, there are some differences and their launch process was a bit more complicated because of the price discovery involved but in our case, it should be straightforward.

Benefits:

• Not increasing the number of tokens in circulation
• Probably we have some holders willing to sell regardless of the price (tough market conditions, financial problems, waiting for a long time). With low initial liquidity, the price will drop fast, and probably we won't recover soon without a change in overall market sentiment. In that way, they will be able to at least cash back the investment + staking rewards/crowdloan rewards.
• Even if there won't be enough holders willing to seed the initial liquidity with their tokens that will be a good sign for others that there is no rush to sell HDX from the community at the LBP price.

As usual thank you for communicating and involving the community into the decision-making process.
I have a question concerning the fact that there is no assets from the Polkadot eco-system, is that something wanted, it could be nice to start locally and then move globally, just curious about that.

@7Hec...pYNq Polkadot ecosystem assets will be most likely added through project treasuries/ DAOs and LPs, as opposed to being bought with Omnipool Protocol Owned Liquidity. The interoperable design of Polkadot allows trustless provision of liquidity through XCM, directly from a project treasury into the Omnipool - with a host of benefits to that specific treasury. Therefore the POL should focus on assets that can't be sourced this way - such as stablecoins and BTC/ ETH :)

This specific discussion is around deploying our POL during Q1, however, our second discussion is seeking feedback on makeup of Omnipool liquidity in general, including our proposal to allow up to 20% of TVL to include ecosystem stablecoins

@TOKENSWOLF Thanks ser for an interesting proposition - since this discussion began however it has become abundantly clear that there is overwhelming demand for LPing of HDX from current HDX holders. As a result, I envisage that there will in fact not be any capacity within the weight cap for HDX for the treasury to provide any further liquidity - as this will move up every time we increase the TVL cap and is getting filled very quickly.

This proposal allows for allocation "up to" a certain value - however, each move to deposit the liquidity into the Omnipool will be executed through community referenda and therefore we can address this with each increase we seek.

@Jose Crypto Interesting discussion regarding this currently ongoing on our other discussion topic - Alexei from Interlay has commented his thoughts :)

why do we need DAI?

@7MT3...A9TN It's a decentralised stablecoin and given we would like to see 40-50% of the total Omnipool liquidity in stablecoins it's also important to have a variety of options.

We don't have better options available that don't carry the same risks re: bridging.

It was also used as the stablecoin to initialise the Omnipool, so a pretty big change would be needed to remove it entirely.

I would like to see a little more HDX stock, I got the proposal, but it could be 700,000 HDX

@7KCX...Gyby most surely the same comunnity will add the hdx side

sinnce this discussion began however it has become abundantly clear that there is overwhelming demand for LPing of HDX from current HDX holders. As a result, I envisage that there will in fact not be any capacity within the weight cap for HDX for the treasury to provide any further liquidity - as this will move up every time we increase the TVL cap and is getting filled very quickly.

I agree that in this early stages, most of HDX holders would like the opportunity to LP. As being one of the most early active supporters, I would like the chance to add HDX with priority over the new coming opportunity seekers. That being said, I would like to offer my personal thoughts for the POL diversification. I agree that all caps should be extended, HDX with priority, but regarding non native tokens, over the wormwhole it's quite difficult, especially when you need for example to already have host tokens available, to be able to execute transactions (ACA for example). I see the benefits of diversifying the POL with all major and massively used tokens like ETH and WBTC but personally I would like to see more polkadot native tokens like USDT, USDC, LINK, KSM, and a few others, having higher liquidity caps than non native tokens, at least until we have a more user friendly and streamlined possibility to add that kind off liquidity from a basic user standpoint.
And please extend the current caps as soon as possible, to reduce price impact and slippage. Slippage is a killer, for example I've taken the advantage to grab more HDX at a lower price, and a 500$ value transaction incurred an 11% price impact. I paid the price to take advantage of the opportunity but it's prohibitive!

.

@xBits yep, you can see on the current council motions, the proposal to increase the TVL cap to 500k