Other great app that will come to osmosis if this prop passes is dao.enterprise.money because they said they will go to all the chains backbone labs goes 
How exactly does this lead to a bad user experience?
What’s the argument for having Stride and Quicksilver but not having smaller alternatives?
How can the nerdy Osmosis userbase be confused by this?
Forgive my questioning but I’m simply trying to question some arguments that I do not see the logic in.
There are already three established LST providers in Cosmos (Stride, Quicksilver and Persistance). Nonetheless, the two latter ones somewhat failed to gain attractions as LST is a winner takes most market as we already witnessed with Lido on ETH.
I don’t want to discourage anyone building out an alternative LST protocol, I just don’t see the point of giving away a huge pile of $OSMO to a LST provider with almost no traction. First build up some reputation, grow the user base, establish the LST in Cosmos DeFi and then ask for a grant/funding.
White Whale has +9M in TVL despite what others have stated in this thread, easily verifiable here:
I think the cost of this proposal is extremely small considering that it would drive users to Osmosis with the only cost being the 10% fee of liquid staking, it is easy to recover it if we don’t see it working out.
Agree with LC below that we could have tranches with objectives.
1 Like
Hmmm, small?
5 million OSMO is requested which is at this time a rough $3.5 million.
With a TVL of currently 9 million that means that this proposals for a staggering increase of nearly 40% put in by 1 protocol. That is kinda high imo.
Going back to my earlier questions; can’t we make it a batched proposal where milestones are met before larger liquidity injections are done?
1 Like
A couple things here:
-
The extra $5m in TVL came after we made our other posts in this thread. It was another liquidity infusion by TFL on the terra outpost.
-
Tranches make sense. I’ve told a few people in the WW community I’d be supportive of a smaller ask to start, with KPI performance indicators to ask for more. But I’m the bad guy because I’m not supportive of a $3.5m ask when the protocols in question have 75%+ of their TVL as inorganic POL and have very little daily volume or integrations.
I truly truly don’t think it’s out of line for me to question whether the integration is worth the cost (and I don’t see others being criticized for mentioning the same).
1 Like
Overall the proposal just makes little sense for osmosis tbh.
- Introduces competition in the dex space and thereby fragmentation on a chain thats known for its amm.
- Proposal asks for a LOT of Osmo in comparison to the teams own track record of getting TVL etc so far.
- Its yet another product that fragments the space by deploying a non-composable copy instead of using IBC (hooks) to make a integrated outpost. Would be more in favour of this if the liquidity was deployed on the migaloo whitewhale homebase accesible to all other of their integrations through that. Or if Ginkou added liquidation support through osmosis and therefore bringing back revenue and usage to Osmosis itself.
- Must agree with Robo that usage metrics dont show investing (the loss of staking yield) these assets into the SAIL products will generate all that much revenue for Osmosis. Its somewhat of a chicken and egg problem but asking for less would have been preffered. Reproposing for a smaller tranche can work.
Best,
Ertemann
Lavender.Five Nodes
1 Like
Hey, just wanted to leave some feedback here as to why I think this proposal is struggling to pass (~29% Turnout with 54.3% voting NO, as of the time of writing)
Personally I think the proposal addresses too many different changes at once. This results in the community voting NO on the proposal for various DIFFERENT reasons. Some may be against launching racoon bet on Osmosis (as @Seppmos has mentioned for his concerns) while others could be against Backbone labs liquid staking being deployed, or the implementation of the the white whale dex instance (as mentioned by @ertemann from lavender five)
Another reason why this proposal might be struggling to pass is because community members have expressed that a 5m POL injection ask is too much and some have gone on to explain that there has not been enough organic traction from ride group applications to warrant such a big spend. Even though multiple community members have been against the size of the POL injection, the feedback has not been taken onboard for the proposal - with the proposal ask amount and details unchanged
Inviting community members to give feedback on the proposal via a twitter space and also via the forum, but not taking that feedback onboard by making adjustments to the proposal does not signal a willingness to work with the Osmosis community, despite wanting to deploy multiple applications on their chain - some food for thought (and the reason why I personally believe this proposal is getting the vote distribution that it is)
Now, for some positivity…
From what I have seen over recent months is a willingness from the Osmosis team and some of the community to evolve Osmosis from an App-chain to chain of apps, hosting a range of DeFi apps and becoming a large application ecosystem. For this reason Stakecito and myself are happy to lean in this direction as we believe it will benefit Osmosis (even if it is different to my vision personally for the chain providing a CEX like experience)
This willingness, from the Osmosis community, to expand the product offerings available on the Osmosis chain means that this proposal can be very good for Osmosis and for Ride/Sail partners and so generally we feel like the deployment of multiple applications on Osmosis related to the Ride group can be beneficial for the network, and we also feel that if approached correctly the Osmosis community would feel the same way.
So what we suggest would be for Ride/Sail partners to work with the Osmosis community to find a set of terms both sides are happy with and if needed to break the proposal down into smaller pieces so that the Osmosis community can be more selective on what parts of the agreement work for them - so that an agreement can be made that benefits both Osmosis and the Ride partners (that Osmosis are interested in collaborating with)
IF it is an all or nothing sort of approach from Ride Group, then this can be expressed also, however I feel that would not be in the spirit of collaboration. These communities have to work together and discuss how a mutually beneficial agreement might look like, if we want this type of proposal to pass and also if we want this sort of collaboration to succeed in the long run and if we want good alignment between the Ride group & the apps they deploy on Osmosis with the Osmosis stakeholders
4 Likes
Hi Ertemann,
Appreciate the feedback. We agree it is a chicken or egg problem.
In response to 1 and 3. in our negotiations with Sunny, we agreed to have the liquidity live on Osmosis with Osmosis keeping its taker fee to align interests and to show we are not a competitor but a collaborator to show we are committed to providing revenue to Osmosis stakers.
In response to 2 and 4: We agree it is a chicken or egg problem. We are asking Osmosis to take a risk on us. However, we believe we have taken every precaution to reduce the risk to the community by not asking for a grant but a liquidity injection. We see the choice boiling down to growing the community pool with staking yield or growing the actual community with more apps and activity. In the long term, we believe increasing activity beats out gains in staking revenue. Our question to you is what size ask for liquidity injection do you see as fair? Knowing that with new LSDs sufficiently deep liquidity is necessary to make sure they do not depeg.
best,
White Whale + RIDE Group
Hi RoboMcGobo,
Thanks for the feedback!
We are hesitant to decrease the ask because what makes LSDs useful is being able to move in and out of them efficiently. To do that you need deep liquidity. LSDs unlock immense capital efficiencies and strategies. Whether that liquidity is organic or not doesn’t matter to the user. If Osmosis wants to have a great user experience it needs deep LSD liquidity. So, if we want users, we need sufficient liquidity for our LSDs otherwise they will not be used and there will be no adoption. It’s a fair criticism to say too much. I only ask you how much is small enough for you to agree to that you also see as not too small to make the liquidity inefficient for swapping at scale.
Even though on Migaloo we have “inorganic” liquidity our activity is very much organic and our LSDs are extremely active just look at the ERIS whale arb vault which arbs when our LSD pools are off balance it is constantly swapping because of constant activity through those pools (arb whale has an 80% apr). This is something that Osmosis will gain. At the end of the day, activity is king because that drives revenue to Osmo stakers. The community has liquidity and can easily provide the necessary gas to start a fire activity.
Best,
Bobloblaw
It doesn’t let me do more than 2 consecutive replies -
So my reply to @LeonoorsCryptoman
Hi Leonoor,
Thanks for the feedback!
What milestones would you have in mind? Volumes? Activity on our apps?
I do feel like the idea of starting smaller and increasing liquidity if we meet milestones is fair
Our rationale for the amount we chose is that LSDs need deep pools to enable activity. If you are getting wrecked, swapping a few bOsmo back to osmo then no one will want to use bOsmo or ampOsmo. We worry that too little liquidity will all but guarantee no activity which is why we leaned for a bigger ask and if there are no results simply revoke it because the liquidity never leaves the community’s hands.
I do like the idea of milestones to hit for more liquidity or revoking it. Leonoor what would be an amount small enough for you to accept but also big enough to give us a chance to prove to you we can be an immense activity to Osmosis? And do you have any milestones in mind for us?
1 Like
Hey Robo, I think the Defilama number just references the tvl on our dex deployment on Migaloo. We have another mil in Ginkou, and if you include all of our deployments I think we’re around $10 mil TVL these days.
I’ll leave the technical feedback for @Sen-Com to respond, but the other thing I would comment on is I personally don’t see this as a competing product. We would be bringing at least 6 working applications/products to Osmosis, along with their users, the least relevant of which is our DEX. WW DEX never intended to compete with the top DEX’s rather to be complimentary. We learned on Terra V1 that a thriving L1 ecosystems benefit from having multiple DEX’s, they bring price stability and arb volume, as well as mitigate exploit risk, and aggregates communities. That’s why I think it’s a net positive for both Astroport and WW DEX to deploy on Osmosis. Further, the real benefit to Osmo is the other ecosystem projects we are bringing with us, especially given Osmosis desire to pivot to an ecosystem. Six turnkey applications is quite a step in that direction.
2 Likes
Both backbone labs and Eris have significant, dedicated user bases, and both offer unique attributes to the design which differentiates them from other LST products. Currently, bWHALE and ampWHALE have multiple different utiliites, they can be staked as an alliance asset on Terra, they can be collateral on Ginkou MM and borrowed against, Eris has guaged governance to determine val set, Backbone has yield bearing nft’s and an nft marketplace tied to their LST’s. Both of these projects have traction and momentum. Osmosis would be wise to have them
Hey @0xbobloblaw and @Sebastian I really appreciate your responses! To quickly add some color to what I mean by competitor, I was referring to a couple of things here:
-
A chat I had with @Sen-Com a while back that White Whale pools could be used to circumvent the ProtoRev module for arb transactions routing through those pools. This is the primary competitive concern I have that I’d really like to get some clarity on as it would directly impact a revenue-driving module for Osmosis. This may not be the case, but again would just like to hear this fleshed out a bit. Nobody has mentioned it in any forum.
-
We’re adding liquidity to WW Dex pools rather than Osmosis Dex pools. This is less of a concern to me due to the aligned interests presented by the taker fee! But I think one of the bigger issues is that it’s likely that less liquidity would be needed if these were added to Osmosis pools, because you’d then have the stableswap or concentrated liquidity options to help make this liquidity a bit more efficient.
All-in-all, I think bootstrapping on a smaller amount makes sense. As far as what that amount should be, it would be helpful if you guys could provide some metrics on the types of integrations you envision for this liquidity, and what the minimum liquidity requirements are. For example:
-
What’s the minimum deposit cap you’d like to see for ampOSMO and bOSMO on Ginkou, and what risk parameters do Ginkou have in place with respect to listing requirements? For example, if you want to see $50-100k in ampOSMO / bOSMO as a deposit cap, what are ginkou’s liquidity requirements for that? Given that liquidity on most other assets on Ginkou are fairly low at this time, $100k deposit cap might make sense as an initial milestone, and we can set a liquidity requirement based on that with KPIs in terms of lending utilization (as collateral is one of LSTs most important usecases) to access more. If the initial deposit cap should be higher, why? Do we have solid reasons to believe that amp / bOSMO will see more lending utilization than ampLUNA for example?
-
Are there plans to onboard additional lending / perps markets for these assets? Have any discussions been had with respect to this? What deposit caps would you like to set here?
-
What volume do you traditionally see through the arb rebalancing vaults for ampLUNA/WHALE/HUAHUA? Arguably you’d want to put enough liquidity to be able to efficiently absorb this.
I think by breaking some of these questions down a bit more we can come to a solid number. Candidly, I don’t know specifically what that could be yet, but if we were a bit more informed about this I think it would make coming up with a number a lot easier. Happy to explore further!
Thank you, appreciate your support!
GM,
Non-Osmosis native pools could be used to circumvent ProtoRev on certain transactions involving the native and non-native DEX, however, the realized arbitrage opportunity wouldn’t have existed without the secondary DEX in the first place. Considering the taker fee, implemented on both DEXs, is still present, a secondary DEX is a net revenue increase for the host chain.
2 Likes
Thank you for this response! What about the following scenario:
-
Trader A makes a swap into the ATOM / OSMO pool on Osmosis.
-
There is now an arbitrage opportunity for OSMO on the Osmosis pool.
-
This opportunity can be filled from either another OSMO pool on Osmosis or an OSMO pool on the White Whale DEX.
Which pool is the arb filled from? This should be filled by ProtoRev right?
Your scenario assumes that White Whale intends to copy the pools on Osmosis and (vampire/attract) the same liquidity. First that would lead to a bidding war for liquidity ultimately benefiting Osmosis as a whole. Second, White Whale intends to bring pools to Osmosis that would otherwise not find their way there, offering more variety for traders.
But for the sake of discussion, let’s consider a simple example of three replicated Whale/Osmo pools, A, B on Osmosis and C on White Whale.
Case 1: There is an imbalance in pool C. Then an arbitrageur can trade against A and B, circumventing ProtoRev. However, the opportunity wouldn’t have been there without C in the first place, consequently it’s a net benefit.
Case 2: There is an imbalance in pool A. Then, an arbitrageur needs to trade against pool C and pool B to rebalance the system. Against C goes without ProtoRev, against B is with ProtoRev. Will there is certainly a loss of ProtoRev revenue because this arbitrage is partly traded against White Whale, the loss is offset by the additional taker fees and transaction fees.
The scenario you’re describing is mostly of theoretical nature with very limited down-side and a high upside for all the fresh liquidity, trading pairs, trading volume and taker fees White Whale will generate.
Also consider that White Whale is probably the most uninteresting piece of the whole proposal and its primary goal is to enable faster integration by the remaining RIDE partners.
2 Likes
Thanks for all the detail here! This pretty much gets me to the answer I needed. I do think that assuming some crossover in pools and in the event that White Whale grows (which is a scenario we’d all be hoping for with a partnership like this), the impact on protorev revenue will be non-trivial.
But I also agree that in that case the upside will outweigh these losses by quite a bit.
I disagree here. I think White Whale is the largest value-driver in this proposal by far, so if it seems like I’m disproportionately pressing for details on the White Whale side of this integration, that’s why.
At any rate, I really appreciate your responses. Didn’t think I was going to get any. Regardless of what happens with this proposal I hope there’s a middle ground that the two communities can find and make work.
3 Likes
The proposal is on chain and currently heading in the direction of being rejected. I know I voted “No” because in my opinion the process was not followed / respected by ignoring any input given here in the channel.
What I certainly disagree with is that following on my vote I get a question why I vote like the way I did. After my explanation it ends up in personal attacks for being inconsistent, stupid and weak. I truly believe we can and must do better if we want to improve governance. Hate the game, not the players. We are all entitled to our own beliefs, morals, values and opinions. Let’s respect them, try to understand why people work the way they do and leave judgements out of it.
What brings me back to this topic started a long time ago, but has failed to gain traction:
How can we create a process which we can follow, yielding the same verifiable outcome regardless of which request we put in so we stop having personal discussions about the requests, but we can assess the process how good it does what we want it to do?
All feedback is welcome!
1 Like
I apologize for any personal attacks you had to bear during this process, unfortunately that kind of thing is going to happen in politics, decentralized or not. From what I saw our community was very engaged in this process and for the most part respectful. We even had community members setting up calls with vals and walking them through the details of the prop… In any case, here is my post mortem: https://x.com/SebastianJer7/status/1735306406587232464?s=20
I outline this in my thread, but wanted to say it in here as well: We rushed this prop on chain, and that was a mistake. We assumed it would pass because the deal was crafted by the teams together so we tried to just force it through without having proper discussion and receiving feedback here, for this I would like to personally apologize to you all in here.
In any case, I believe most of the OSMO community would like to make a deal with us, but I also believe that the deal in its current form can be improved. So I would like to continue this discussion, modify the deal, gain consensus in here, and then move forward with a new proposal. Let me know if this is something you all are interested in. @RoboMcGobo @L1am-Stakecito
3 Likes