Also I don’t think we need to block this proposal on this, but in the future, I do really think we should be having community pool positions at least having some range changes over full range.
E.g. “no LP’ing at implied LVN market cap/FDV under $100k, or above $1 billion”. The reason for this is just capital efficiency of the position. Something super reasonable like that, AFAIU, should at least double the capital efficiency here.
Just to chip in with some clarifications on their behalf:
The full range only applies for the first 3 months, after which Levana can withdraw or concentrate the liquidity to a more efficient range after price discovery has happened. Full range is just less complicated for a pairing that hasn’t had price discovery. Although I get setting a boundary, it doesn’t make things that more efficient and keeps setup very simple.
This liquidity also isn’t owned by Osmosis in this proposal, it is Levana’s. The repaid LVN could always be used for another position in a future proposal though.
Since it’s Levana’s liquidity, they’ll keep the swap fees too. I’ve always thought this was a weird precedent that we set with the STARS proposal. In my opinion, the swap fees should be part of the repayment so that Osmosis gets a form of interest on the loan.
Not something I think worth blocking this proposal for since Levana is such a large Osmosis app, but maybe something to consider for future ones to make this more worthwhile for Osmosis.
Interesting take indeed.
People can also argue that the profit for Osmosis is the full integration of a major dApp using Osmosis as a homebase. That drives usage of the platform which is beneficial for Osmosis.
So the interest should / could also be non-financial imo.