Is the goal not to request treasury DOT to be deployed into the omnipool? If that is still the plan for the protocol then what reasoning is there to buy Dot for POL?

If we will see treasury DOT in the omnipool then those funds could be better allocated to ETH LSDs or iBTC, etc.

What is the purpose for DCA’ing? Why not just market buy. The best marketing is when token price goes up

I will vote no with conviction and advise friends to do so as well if it comes this proposal will go onchain.

I am against the purchase of more ethereum and in particular the "Buy 2,000,000 DAI worth of ETH (incl. LSDs)" section.
The reason for my opposition is motivated by the fact:

• A dex will be used on eth and not hydra (swap or otc),
• Risk exposure on eth's lsds (including bifrost),
• We are in the polkadot ecosystem and already have enough eth in POL.

TLDR
No any new ETH assets

My recommendations:

850000 DAI worth of IBTC, estimated amount, we need to even out the POL share of wbtc so we can easily activate the wbtc-ibtc stable pool.

2200000 DAI worth of USDT, deploy on omnipool waiting for usdc native to arrive and swap it later

3000000 DAI worth of DOT, I agree with the proposal.

1000000 DAI worth of HDX, I agree with the proposal.

I partially agree with the previous comments.

For now I don't see the need to buy more ETH❌, I don't see it as a great priority, I would simply separate this portion of the funds and leave it for a vote later on a possible re-allocation of the funds

and for now focus on the native assets of the ecosystem.

maybe increase the iBTC portion a bit ✅ and I would recommend doing it through OTC, mostly,

I would recommend the same with DOT✅, mostly use OTC feature, at least the 50% of the funds, since is a big amount

agree with HDX, with DCA, to get better price execution and avoid front runt✅

Why buy HDX?

I partially agree with the Jose comments

• I would think about leaving the amount allocated for the purchase of ETH until the DOT<>ETH bridge appears. And in the future, buy blue chips Defi ETH (or not only defi). maybe a RUNE, OHM, L2 rollups etc

I'd like to provide a little more context wrt the thinking behind the assets highlighted in the proposal:

HDX
In the grand scheme of things, 1M DAI is not a lot of POL - however, 1M DAI equivalent of HDX at current prices is ~222M HDX (3.5% of supply) which could have many uses in more positive market conditions. Some ideas for use of the HDX:

• Continue to add HDX POL to Omnipool to maintain 5% weight as TVL increases, without depleting the treasury
• Bootstrap the treasury further for more firepower in better market conditions
• Adds additional firepower for use in e.g. bonds at a later date

DOT
There don't appear to be too many dissenting comments on this asset, but to be clear on reasons behind accumulating more DOT:

• Parachain slot renewal is coming up fast, we can't be sure how much the next slot will cost
• As the most liquid asset in Polkadot, it is important that we establish Omnipool as the most liquid venue for DOT

ETH & ETH LSDs
I understand the comments regarding ETH, I have had thoughts regarding the low volume on this asset currently, however, the reasons I put this forward in the proposal are:

• ETH is ultra-sound money, it is the second most liquid asset (for now) in the entire crypto space and as such is an excellent asset to have backing LRNA in the Omnipool.
• ETH as a % of the pool will trend down over time as Polkadot ecosystem assets are added by project treasuries - we do not have a similar source of ETH liquidity, and therefore accumulating it with POL is the best option without spending large amounts on LM incentives over time.
• ETH LSDs would provide a stable yield to our POL, which could prove extremely useful in the future - either through redistributing amongst POL or providing support to LRNA value (and thus stability of the Omnipool).
• When Snowbridge finally deploys, we will need to ensure that Omnipool is a source for swaps to/ from other assets. Seeding the pool with some initial liquidity will help us to then accumulate more through e.g. DCA in the future.
  I understand though that this could be further out into the future, so it may be that we decide as a community to kick that can down the road and instead focus on the here-and-now.

Why DCA instead of OTC
I see Jose's comment wrt using OTC instead of DCA, I have already discussed this with him since this comment but thought I'd share the thinking here.
OTC requires choosing a fixed price, and would require a referendum to set it up - therefore the price we choose could be irrelevant before we even begin to execute on it. This could go one of 2 ways, either the price has moved up (so nobody will fill it) or it has gone down and we get rekt on price movement.
Whereas DCA will allow the protocol to effectively TWAP the accumulation of these assets, which has been show to provide the best possible average price for accumulation. Using the DCA feature:

• Dogfoods our own feature, providing a perfect case study for other treasuries looking to deploy their assets
• Increases volume in the Omnipool
• Allows best execution price without turning HydraDX into a trader/ speculatooooor

These DCA bids would likely be broken down into smaller sprints, to allow for calibration - but as an example, for $3.3M worth of DOT we could:

• If executed over 1 Quarter: Buy the equivalent of $254K per week, $36K per day, $1.5K per hour, $25 per minute
• if executed over 2 Quarters/ 6 months: Buy the equivalent of $127K per week, $18K per day, $750 per hour, $12 per minute
  As a result, even if the liquidity is "low" in an asset, by breaking it down into continuous, small orders you allow for constant arbitrage to maintain price and minimal slippage.

yes, depending on its execution, I agree with using DCA, it just gave me the impression that it would be setup in a shorter period of time and this would be counterproductive

but if it is set up with two quarters in mind, it wouldn't be bad

Regarding ETH, for now I maintain the position of separating it from next week's vote and giving it more discussion, which I think will be the point at which there will be different opinions.

and at least if we will continue with ETH in this proposal, lower it to a smaller amount like 500k and use DCA, and maybe build it in a smaller period of time?

This gives us a case study of the operation of the DCA in different periods of time and with different Liquidity Amounts, since ETH has much more liquidity than DOT, for example.

Sers, and what about $ATOM? I see lot of fundaments, why can ATOM goes up this year. And some members of crypto community compare DOT and ATOM because they see some similarities. It could be a positive step in diversification. I agree with proposal except for part about DOT. My proposal in this part is 3,000,000 DAI worth of DOT and 330,000 worth of ATOM.
Caesar

You need some GLMR if you want to be a liquidity big dawg. Not a fan personally but there’s a community & a lot of people using it in terms of DOT users.

1M ETH (does BNC have a LSD we could buy?)

2M DOT

1M GLMR

1M ibtc

1M HDX

6 828 277

1 000 000
1m -HDX

3 000 000
1m -DOT
1m -vDOT
1m -next slot

500 000
0.5m -iBTC

1 000 000
0.5m -ETH
0.5m -vETH

1 330 000
blue chips Dotsama- long HydraDX
0.22 -GLMR
0.22 -CFG
0.22 -PHA
0.22 -ASTR
0.22 -BNC
0.22 -xcRMRK

The entire approach imv needs to be with the DAO2DAO aspect in mind. What that means is that the liquidity should only be used for tokens where it will not be possible through collaboration to let the tokens enter the omnipool.

So tokens like IBTC, eth, Dot are a yes.

Stuff like BNC, phala, rmrk, glmr, astar, etc. have their own treasury at their disposal and need to be convinced via the diplomatic way.

Frankly, when these projects don't see the value for them to deploy some of their idling treasury tokens into the omnipool and actually grow them with real yield, I have no hope for them.

To emphasize it. When Centrifuge is giving tokens. These tokens are still Centrifuge's. They don't give anything away like ecosystem grants etc. They merely change the place their tokens are at the moment, while earning real yield on them.

Only when when the HydraDX team is able to achieve that, the DAO2DAO hyper liquidity omnipool Vision can truly come alive.

Since there have been several comments regarding using the POL, to obtain different tokens, it would be prudent to leave a % of the POL, it would be best not to look to occupy/spend all the remaining tokens now

If not, at least leave a small percentage for consideration later, after the fruit of some conversations with other communities/projects is seen, and if in any of those cases we want X tokens, we can add it without depending on anyone

and without the need to withdraw liquidity from the Omnipool, which can reduce its stability, in order to move it to other tokens.

Based on the discussion so far, I believe that the following are not controversial:

• 1,000,000 DAI > HDX
• 3,300,000 DAI > DOT (and then DOT LSTs, etc)
• 500,000 DAI > iBTC

Therefore, in order to move forward whilst allowing further discussion and time for the situation to evolve - I will split out the above and leave the remaining 2,000,000 DAI out of the matter for the time being.

We can review once again in the coming weeks & months when we have executed on the above and have more information regarding integrations, etc

Council motion is now up: https://hydradx.subsquare.io/council/motion/71