Jelly Protocol is a set of smart contract template recipes for rewards distribution. Powered by a contract factory and out of the box UI, Jelly makes it easy for projects to create their own Airdrops, Staking and Farming programs. They released their first permissionless Recipe for Airdrops and are starting to aggregate across multiple projects, chains and dexes. The next template is the Farming Recipe and they are looking to integrate dexes like Balancer, making it easy for projects to incentivise liquidity for Balancer pools.
The token launched only a few months ago with a Sushiswap JELLY/USDC Pool. Using BAL incentives via the gauge will attract more users to provide liquidity and migrate from the current Sushiswap pool, and make the Balancer pool become the main ETH <> JELLY bridge.
Governance Forum using Discourse has been established
Adding Snapshot voting with the introduction of veJELLY
Jelly Protocol does not rely on external oracles
The Jelly Airdrop contract is subject to a bug bounty program on hats.finance funded with 2M JELLY rewards
The token is not upgradeable nor pausable in the future;
The admin has limited minting capabilities based on a supply cap and cannot blacklist the contract;
The team behind the token have shown that they have never abused nor committed any actions that would affect the integrity of the builders behind Jelly;
Treasury multisig has been established, and Rewards multisig is separated from Treasury for JellyDAO implementation.
Jelly has been actively trading since May 2022. The listing price was $0.01 and although the valuation has fluctuated the current price has remained close to listing at $0.007. The USDC/JELLY pool was launched on Sushiswap and there has been more than $8Mil volume since May 1
what’s the thinking behind making this an 80/20? you mention veJELLY but I assume that’s traditional single token ve system and not locking the 80/20. seems a bit odd to have veJELLY and an 80/20 pool.
Excited to be moving to Balancer, specifically to make the 80/20 pool. We created an 80/20 pool as it offers a good balance between liquidity and IL, and as we migrate our POL, we’ll be able to add more JELLY and increase our liquidity.
We haven’t yet launched veJELLY, currently it will be a traditional single token ve system, but that’s not to say that 80/20 BPT can’t also be vote escrowed in the future with both contributing to snapshot weightings via separate strategies or a wrapper of sorts.
it is true you can add more JELLY but 80/20’s suffer a 36% loss in trading efficiency compared to a 50/50. You already have veJELLY for holders who want high JELLY exposure - I don’t really see the benefit of using an 80/20, unless you were going to use it in your ve system instead of JELLY. Meanwhile, 50/50 would be better to allow new users to buy JELLY to lock in veJELLY and in general would be more favorable for JELLY’s liquidity.
If the goal here is trading liquidity for JELLY I’d go with 50/50 personally. If the goal is max farming with your POL or something then I get it. Ultimately your choice though, no problem voting in favor for either one.
I’m in favour of this.
Jelly currently only has usdc sided liquidity, and while stablecoin sided liquidity is good for downside risk, I’m not a fan of the centralization risk posed by usdc.
If an 80/20 jelly/weth gauge was implemented, I’d break my SLP, drop the usdc for weth and migrate my liquidity immediately.
Yes, JELLY has currently got low trading volume - here’s the DEX tools link for a bit more granularity https://www.dextools.io/app/ether/pair-explorer/0x64c2f792038f1fb55da1a9a22749971eac94463e
We are a fairly new protocol and have been focussed on building since the start. Jelly’s utility is a fee model based on our rewards distribution recipes. The first recipe to launch was in July for creating Airdrops, and we charge a fee based on the tokens that projects put into their Airdrop pool. It is early days for us, so we have only just started accumulating fees and have not yet got a lot of utility.
We created a JELLY/ETH pool as an alternative option to USDC and as part of this new pool we want to use BAL incentives to attract more users and more liquidity.
But with such low trading volume what’s in it for Balancer? We’ve heard good things about Balancer and have started building integration to Balancer for our Farming Recipe. Our longer term intention is to use this opportunity to design how we can best integrate Jelly Protocol with Balancer as one of our Farming Recipes, or using BPTs in our ve/Staking Recipes. We’d also like to get feedback from the Balancer ecosystem on how this could best be done and make it easier for projects who want to use Balancer for their pools.
I can appreciate where you are coming from based on what happened with DIGG. We’d be very happy to explore any questions/ suggestions on how we can make this more attractive for Balancer and build more trust with the Balancer community.
Given our history with microcap projects I am currently against enabling this gauge: it seems that the potential BAL spent on this gauge will be way higher than any potential trading fees generated from JELLY.
Based on trading volume and market cap, this is a dangerous gauge to approve. We have learned the hard way in the past, and I caution against it.
If the pool is launched and becomes a top earner, coupled with increased MC, it becomes more resistant to being used as a reward sequestration vector. Only then do I think it is safe to approve a gauge for this type of project.