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.
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.
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.
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.
“Grow the pie” != selfless giving
GTP only works bc both parties are gaining value, if not then the pie isn’t growing.
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?
I recommend:
/osmosis.concentratedliquidity.v1beta1.MsgTransferPositions message to the community pool address (osmo1jv65s3grqf6v6jl3dp4t6c9t9rk99cd80yhvld)There is now such a pool in existence here if the multisig want to use it.
Thank you for the leg work @JohnnyWyles, will relay to the committee 
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:
The multisigs have successfully exchanged 50% of their respective balances (85k OSMO and 115k NTRN) as can be seen below:
The committee is in the process of writing, reviewing and testing the liquidity provisioning transactions.
Osmosis side should be nice and simple thanks to passthrough tooling for DAODAO!
Hopefully this becomes available on more dapps eventually.
The liquidity has been successfully provided to pool 1388:
