I created pool 2159, but I was informed by support that it was removed based on a decision made by the “higher-ups.” Such actions seem unacceptable to me, as no rules listed on the Osmosis website were violated, and the fee for creating the pool was charged. Additionally, there was no Governance vote on the matter.
Therefore, I request the immediate reversal of this unclear decision. If someone believes that this pool should be removed, such a decision should be subject to a DAO Governance vote.
I am extending my request to include pools 2217 and 2218, as I noticed there is a PR proposing their removal due to malfunction, even though they are functioning correctly.
No frontend is compelled to list all pools or tokens. There has often been confusion around this since the Osmosis.zone frontend adheres to what the Osmosis chain governance has passed.
A similar question was previously brought to governance here when the Osmosis.zone maintainers had two separate sites, Frontier and the main App:
The pools in question have been deliberately positioned to appear to be high-liquidity pools while, in reality, being a meme token with no underlying liquidity for users to sell into once entered. This results in an incorrectly displayed TVL by many magnitudes which is highly misleading.
If you want to do a meme coin with sole control, manipulation of the Osmosis.zone frontend to make it appear far more liquid than it is intentionally misleads users who are browsing for the main pools available in terms of the token’s distribution and popularity.
If you want to create a token with 100% of the supply in circulation, I suggest Start Cooking; otherwise, the sole benefit is that you control the supply personally, which allows a rug pull.
The Osmosis.zone frontend maintainers are re-evaluating how pools are displayed so that pools abusing the current display do not need to be filtered, at which point these filters will be removed.
I understand that the Osmosis management has the right to decide which tokens are displayed on the project’s homepage. However, this does not exempt them from being transparent and able to justify their decisions. I also understand that the management is responsible for the quality of support.
When I contacted support, they were unable to explain why the token was blocked; instead, I was insulted and called a fool before the chat was abruptly ended. In another conversation, it was suggested that the problem might be the token’s name, while in yet another, it was said that one-sided liquidity could be the issue. I offered to change both the name and the liquidity structure, but I never received a response.
We created the token after thoroughly reviewing all available materials and did not violate any previously established rules. We paid the required fees and invested our time. We chose the Osmosis exchange because it seemed to be the best option, but now I’m not so sure. The insinuations that we deliberately manipulated the liquidity pool are entirely unfounded and go against the principles expected in this forum.
If such restrictions exist, I suggest they be documented. This would prevent the Osmosis community from experiencing negative opinions and poor impressions. Otherwise, users who trusted the exchange, paid the required fees, and had their token blocked shortly afterward may feel as if they have been robbed.
I support the request to unblock the token. However, if there are any irregularities, please point them out and allow us to fix them.
Due to your restrictions and the non-functional interface on osmosis.zone, I wanted to change liquidity on daodao.zone, but I accidentally entered the wrong amount. Someone immediately drained all the liquidity, so the problem resolved itself, and there’s nothing left for you to block.
