# Neutron \<\> Osmosis Alignment **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal Discussion\ **Tags:** passed\ **Created:** [December 14, 2023, 8:11pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856 "2023-12-14T20:11:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![LeonoorsCryptoman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/leonoorscryptoman/32/208_2.png) [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2024, 11:50am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/21 "2024-01-13T11:50:11Z")
I totally agree! However, we have heard the “Grow the pie” narrative being played by Osmosis representatives, but when the narrative doesn’t apply to Osmosis we are not willing to act accordingly? That is not how the world works imo. It is bi-directional, or we don’t do it. But not preach the narrative when it only fulfills our own targets and goals. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyWyles](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/johnnywyles/32/3114_2.png) [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2024, 12:04pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/22 "2024-01-13T12:04:30Z")
If this liquidity doesn’t go into a newly created NTRN/OSMO CL pool, it will barely be used. Slippage reduction is linear in xyk pools since the positions are uniform. ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/osmosis1/original/2X/5/58b6017d46f73b132b7574c3fcbc8487a16986d9.png) This liquidity would likely bump the volume in the NTRN/OSMO pool by around 66%, barely making a dent in the volume that is passing through the growing NTRN/USDC pool. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyWyles](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/johnnywyles/32/3114_2.png) [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2024, 12:18pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/23 "2024-01-13T12:18:39Z")
I am very much in favor of win/win proposals, but this is too one-sided. For comparison: AXL/OSMO and STARS/OSMO AXL and STARS got a price established with initial liquidity, Osmosis got two substantial markets. Probably 50/50 in value. MANTA/OSMO, both sides got a new listing with a suitable amount of liquidity. I believe this was about 60/40 since the volume isn’t too high and MANTA’s strategy is more about accumulating a variety of POL to increase circulation without dilution. WYND/OSMO was probably in the same category (ignoring the unforeseen outcome); both sides needed some initial liquidity, and the spends were relatively small. stOSMO/OSMO, I still think this swap was heavily towards Stride’s benefit since the Osmosis community pool now owns half the stOSMO in existence, bumping Stride’s yield as establishing stOSMO as a clear liquidity leader. But then, Osmosis benefits from having a highly liquid LST. 75/25 NTRN/OSMO, Osmosis doesn’t need the liquidity at all, based on the above comments. The “benefits” are that OSMO has liquidity established on a competing trading venue that likely does not generate new users and overall increases Protocol-owned liquidity. The latter is a nice bonus, but if it isn’t well deployed this is a huge waste. Neutron gets the same benefit on top of the liquidity diversity that it actually does need. 90/10. ---
**Author:** ![trix](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/trix/32/2708_2.png) [@trix](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/trix)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2024, 5:47pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/24 "2024-01-13T17:47:27Z")
“Grow the pie” != selfless giving GTP only works bc both parties are gaining value, if not then the pie isn’t growing. ---
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/spaydh/32/821_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2024, 8:01am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/25 "2024-01-15T08:01:04Z")
Hi @JohnnyWyles, I think that makes sense. Would you be willing to help set up/point the committee to the right pool so that the POL is deployed in the most beneficial way to Osmosis? ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyWyles](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/johnnywyles/32/3114_2.png) [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2024, 11:02am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/26 "2024-01-15T11:02:48Z")
I recommend: - NTRN/OSMO CL pool over xyk to increase liquidity efficiency. - Returning this to the community pool is a case of using the ` /osmosis.concentratedliquidity.v1beta1.MsgTransferPositions` message to the community pool address (`osmo1jv65s3grqf6v6jl3dp4t6c9t9rk99cd80yhvld`) - Position to be a wide range position to ensure minimal adjustment. - MANTA/OSMO was +/- 10x. NTRN is much closer in value to OSMO but each would still need a 4x change to reach the same marketcap. So I think somewhere between those two values would be appropriate. - Fee to be lower than current standard for NTRN pairings - This offsets the inefficiency of the position and adds to taker fee revenue rather than the position’s revenue. I suggest 0.05% rather than the current 0.2% standard. There is now such a pool in existence here if the multisig want to use it. > **[Osmosis](https://app.osmosis.zone/pool/1388)** > > Swap, earn, and build on the leading decentralized Cosmos exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/spaydh/32/821_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2024, 12:20pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/27 "2024-01-15T12:20:46Z")
Thank you for the leg work @JohnnyWyles, will relay to the committee 🙏 ---
**Author:** ![LeonoorsCryptoman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/leonoorscryptoman/32/208_2.png) [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2024, 2:30pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/28 "2024-01-15T14:30:29Z")
Is it not normal for a bigger protocol to take a bit more of a burden than a smaller protocol? I already saw a discussion about a potential upcoming DYDX / OSMO swap, which falls into the same category for me. What is the mutual benefit or will it be one of the 2 players which will benefit a lot more out of it? Because if the latter, then the reasoning (and voting) should be the same 🙂 It is all about setting precedents and taking actions from the words we tell. Grow the pie is looking towards the complete ecosystem for me. It does not necessarily mean that both protocols gain an equal share. Your argument that it might not get traction at all (or at least not yield new trades / traders) is way more valuable for me, since that suggests it is quite the meaningless spend and we can better put the money elsewhere. Coming back to the question; is it value for money is the more important question. The outcome is quite interesting, whereas Yes \<\> No \<\> Abstain are roughly in balance. Have not seen that before like this: > **[Mintscan](https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/700)** > > Interchain explorer and analytics powered by Cosmostation. ---
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/spaydh/32/821_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2024, 9:51pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/29 "2024-01-17T21:51:39Z")
The multisigs have successfully exchanged 50% of their respective balances (85k OSMO and 115k NTRN) as can be seen below: > **[Explorer | Celatone Explorer for Cosmos chain](https://osmosis.celat.one/osmosis-1/contracts/osmo128laly00yvpr69usz6s9n7j8f8sx6780npyauyt9ku46mpwx2n5qsxapq6)** > > A smart contract powered explorer for the Cosmos. > **[Explorer | Celatone Explorer for Cosmos chain](https://neutron.celat.one/neutron-1/contracts/neutron18z6hywlev42yka903u3h88alcqke93u78gvc4g6fdsk7uudgwevqwstq64)** > > A smart contract powered explorer for the Cosmos. The committee is in the process of writing, reviewing and testing the liquidity provisioning transactions. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyWyles](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/johnnywyles/32/3114_2.png) [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2024, 9:43am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/30 "2024-01-18T09:43:39Z")
Osmosis side should be nice and simple thanks to passthrough tooling for DAODAO! Hopefully this becomes available on more dapps eventually. ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/osmosis1/original/2X/d/d25dc08b1c7519dc85521a712a97434d68d4358a.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/spaydh/32/821_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2024, 3:06pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856/31 "2024-01-30T15:06:56Z")
The liquidity has been successfully provided to pool 1388: > **[Ping Dashboard - Cosmos Blockchain Explorer And Web Wallet](https://ping.pub/osmosis/tx/324FD3C7B2D1CD022FA65A4AE34EB3017F4581D658E57862F18395FFAF9E11DD)** > > Ping Dashboard is a block explorer/web wallet for blockchains built on Cosmos SDK, Cosmoshub, Osmosis, Juno, Evmos, Injective, Canto and 70+ blockchains listed on ping.pub [Previous page](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/neutron-osmosis-alignment/856.md?page=1)