Document is read only. So if you can change it that would be great.
1 Like
Fixed, you should be able to edit the document now.
1 Like
Available liquidity is essential to allowing people to invest in large positions.
I can see the benefits of launching a balancer 80:20 pool in terms of allowing the treasury / DAO members to create BANK liquidity without tying up too much ETH (ideal for a treasury that is heavily funded by the native token).
Iām sure many protocols have used the 80:20 pools for this purpose (and BAL rewards are always welcome).
However, DeFi is moving.
Polygon trading volumes are huge, and itās low cost.
BANK is a small market cap, and has minimal volume, so not that attractive to the exchanges.
However, BANKless is a huge brand in DeFi, so I see a reasonably smooth route to getting incentives in $MATIC, $SUSHI or $QUICK.
While having the main liquidity for a token on L2 isnāt that common at the moment, I donāt see it being a problem for BANK, traders will find it (and market forces will soon solve the arbitrage opportunities between L1 and L2).
A potentially unsolved question is allowing LPās to vote BANK in a L2 staking contract - Iām not sure anyone is doing it yet, but people will be thinking about it.
One related question:
How big a liquidity pool do we need?
What size of position do we see people accumulating?
I suspect most holders are either air drop recipients, community learning or people who purchased 35k (like me) with long term hold mentalities - so minimal trade volume.
One final comment: The liquidity considerations for BANK donāt apply to BED. BED will require reasonable L1 liquidity for the foreseeable future (but Uni v3 helps significantly).
6 Likes
People suggesting L1 to store liquidity either havenāt used L2 or are unaware of the pain and suffering of small traders trying to transact on l1
4 Likes
$10 fees? Isnt that too much?
2 Likes
I already made an 80/20 BANK/WETH pool: Balancer. It is an Oracle pool with delegated swap fees (i.e., we can ask Gauntlet to manage the swap fee dynamically to optimize LP returns. I initially set the fee high because itās low liquidity).
So, one option is to just use this existing pool - and ask Gauntlet to manage fees + make a governance proposal for LP mining. Or if the community would rather have permanently fixed fees, I could withdraw from the current pool and create that one.
Iād advise against fragmenting liquidity by creating duplicate pools with different fees. Having one pool with dynamically managed fees seems like a good solution that hasnāt been considered.
Itās even possible to create an owned pool where the fees could be set dynamically through Bankless community governance, if thereās an appropriate multi-sig account to use as the owner.
2 Likes
Great idea! I would totally be an LP for a balancer 80/20 pool. Uniswap pool not so much.
1 Like
I think we should first focus on layer 1 and L2 can be added later. Think of it like building a house, where L1 is the foundation and framework and L2 makes it livable 
1 Like
Thanks for putting this together. We certainly want to find more ways to generate usage of $BANK. What all the gentleman said above carries my most relevant talking points.
1 Like
Weāve moved this proposal to the next stage - please give any final feedback on the proposal here: [Draft] Create an 80% BANK / 20% WETH Liquidity Pool on Balancer to improve $BANK Liquidity
1 Like
Balancer is already on Polygon. I could create a pool there as well, if thereās a corresponding BANK token there so it can be bridged.
5 Likes
And now we are on Arbitrum as well.
The token has been bridged, but I think there is more work to do on it.
@sweetman.eth I think was working on it.
Moving to archive. Please reply to reopen.