I agree with @solarcurve on this: I personally don’t see the need for this kind of pool and I would probably skip this part.
I also see it fairly expensive given the bet Balancer is making.
But as mentioned above, if the proposal looks good (need to have “Motivation”; “Specification” and eventually “Risks”) then BAL token holder have the final word on this.
Good luck!
//We request 10,000 BAL to seed liquidity for 50% SYMM <> 50% BAL pools on Symmetric V2.0 and Balancer on Mainnet. In addition, we request a strategic grant of $100K USDC to fuel the further development and marketing of Symmetric V2.0.//
Did i miss anything? Did we give Beethoven X and Hexagon liquidity and grants to expand to other chains? If no, why we have to on this one?
I’m considering making this topic a separate thread so as not to distract from the Symmetric team. Again I’d like to reiterate that this is not directed at Symmetric, rather the Friendly Fork process in general.
First of all, I’m not anon. Am I yelling my identify from the mountaintops? No. But anyone who tries can figure out who I am pretty easily. I’m not anti-anon either, I’m pro-trustlessness. To that end, how would I approach the issue? I’d have a list of clear requirements that are required to be considered.
To be honest, I don’t think that my original request for verified contracts is even “increasing the number of requirements” as much as actually following what was originally outlined. From the Friendly Fork Proposal:
I’m guessing someone will be eager to jump on the “ideally” in that bullet point and say it’s not a precondition. I would argue that the “ideally” here implies that ideally the contracts are identical, and that if they’re not they need to be explained. Eager to hear what @followthechain 's intent was.
As far as anything else I think should be a requirement, I’d succinctly sum it up as “it should exist at the time of proposal for vote.” This process should not exist to hype unreleased projects.
What does it mean to “exist”? I’d start with this list:
Hey - Martin from Gnosis here.
We certainly would love to have Balancer on Gnosis Chain. If the balancer team directly has no capacity to deploy and maintain a version of Balancer on GC the “friendly fork” route seems the best outcome for Balancer.
We certainly have ambitious plans to increase DEFI activity on GC and Balancer (or a friendly fork) should not be missing in this ecosystem.
Defilama is by the way a good source to follow Defi activity on various chains: Gnosis TVL - DefiLlama
Hello, Martin.
I know Balancer have a good relationship with Gnosis and i believe GC is a good chain, but doesn’t mean we have to pay to deploy on it. This is not an usual practice in this industry. Did Curve pay Convex and Ellipsis? Did Balancer pay Beethoven X and Hexagon? Is GC TVL higher than Fantom and Avalanche, so we must have to pay to have a fork over there?
We are all OGs here.
We all know the answers for above questions are NO.
Hey @joeywong
I’ve mentioned it before and will again. I think phrasing this as Balancer " paying" and approaching this BFF as a negotiation between two unaligned parties is suboptimal.
BAL - is the ecosystem and governance token of the Balancer Ecosystem; I’m convinced that we want Ecosystem Partners, especially important ones like Friendly Forks, to hold, stake, and govern with BAL tokens.
I refuse to see Balancer Friendly Forks - and any DAO partnership for that regard - as a single-sided relationship where we expect something from another party because they use our open-source infrastructure.
We’re trying to build a resilient and innovative ecosystem to develop Balancer - and therefore have to be supportive to individuals, organizations, and projects that have proven to bring value. Symmetric has supported and pushed the Balancer technology on two chains for many months and truly thinks it’s in the DAOs’ best interest to help them succeed. Giving them small capital support for their launch and allowing them to make markets for BAL in new chains will increase their capacity to grow and mature, which is in Balancer’s interest.
I propose submitting this proposal to Governance tomorrow and letting BAL voters decide. If BAL holders are against this approach, SYMM can re-engage with a different ask.
We are not seeing this as a single-sided relationship. We work together with our friendly fork together to bring decentralised exchange to our users. Look at Beethoven X. Both parties are happy with the results.
I object submitting this proposal to governance as the community not reach enough consensus here.
We should use the same standard to our friendly forks. Grants to some friendly fork is unfair to our old friends.
I m quite disappointed to see this unequal treaties and supported by our Partnership subDAO member. I once thought Luuk is representing Symmetric. haha
Here are some comments from our Chinese community:
Not all negative comments tho, but the positive ones very depend on our due diligence and want more in return. From this proposal, from my standard, i don’t think it pass.
Hi Dixon here. Just a nobody who recently interested in researching on DAO2DAO (D2D) topic after watching Balancer presenting on the same topics recently.
This proposal draws my attention, as i see there seems something fundamental is not addressed yet - what defines a friendly fork (FF) - at which point we should draw the line to evaluate a proposal from an entity to a strategic partnership? i think @gerg has mentioned a few good points on the required steps to facilitate D2D, such as due diligence and audit requirement, Yet all these should be considered after the proposal is classified as a D2D / strategic partnership first before going into such workflow. And it seems that Balancer as a whole does not have this clarity yet either.
That could be dangerous to any well-established protocol if a proper D2D onboarding flow is not yet ready but already accepting D2D-type proposal directly.
i think a better way to handle this proposal is suspend its voting until the D2D wokflow has been clearly accepted and aligned within Balancer first.
Just my2cents.
Dixon
PM in Aragon and Standard Protocol
Thanks @DixonW for your feedback.
This is a very good point.
This proposal should be suspended until the D2D wokflow has been clearly accepted and aligned within Balancer first.
I think @gerg comment is crucial here also for me from a technical standpoint. We should only talk about friendly forks IF they are deployed and exist. Otherwise it is just vaporware. As said before, Beethoven-X is an example of the best possible outcome: first deploy a product, then think about a friendly-fork initiative. As it stands I am NOT in support of this proposal to go to a vote and in general against any future BFFs if they are not deployed yet.
Symmetric has been live for over eight months and has all main functionalities of V2.0 deployed and in testing to go live on both networks. It’s a team that operates in the open and has been building for months. I genuinely fail to understand how this gets backlash while a full anon-team with no life product just passed without any input.
Attached is our mainnet multisig: eth:0x3d70E1b46FFC3B1b4ed72Ec1F56a747D33902210
Looking at this proposal on the surface is pretty exciting being almost solely active on Gnosis Chain and a big fan of Balancer. Any talk about having more BAL liquidity on Gnosis Chain is something I’ve wanted, though I admit the total demand at least short term is probably low. I would be for a seeded BAL:SYMM pool if there is no other ways to get liquidity on the chain. One possibility is to ask Balancer to provide less liquidity for seeding and to only conditionally provide further funds if the LP reaches satisfactory volume or TVL. I believe this can be done with conditional carrot tokens on Gnosis Chain.
Having Balancer tech on Gnosis Chain is also exciting, but I would be more interested in having Symmetric being a secure and reliable and long term representative of that technology, which can at least partially be done with the above mentioned matching of identical contracts on the bytecode level.
We do have identical matching bytecode on both v1 and our pre-launch version of v2.
I want the best outcome possible here for all parties. I am a big Gnosis Chain fan and i understand Celo is popular as well so the 2 in 1 deal does yield some great benefits. The swap pricing does seem a bit off to me from a strictly dollars and cents side but this can be made flexible I hope. My main concerns are with the fine print. 1. What are the goals of the grant more specifically, payment tranches and deliverables. Grants should not be paid as a lump sum given without definitive deliverables and deadlines. 2. In the Agreement section if one dao overrides the friendly fork agreement are the swap, and or grant reversed to some degree? - just some thoughts on technicalities I do hope we can get a deal through for a FF on both networks which fosters growth for everyone.
Once again, i here represent our Chinese community member to express what they think:
“I just checked Symmetric product, it’s not that good. No hope on this project. I would vote No if there’s a voting.”
Hi everyone, Mojmir from the Gnosis Chain (formerly xDai Chain) team here.
Knowing and having worked closely with the Symmetric team over the course of more than a year I support their Balancer FF proposal.
By deciding to deploy Symmetric on the Gnosis Chain, they brought a missing piece of the chain’s DeFi puzzle to the ecosystem and this is still the case as they are the only Balancer v1 fork on the chain at the moment. This is giving Symmetric unique value proposition on the Gnosis Chain which will be boosted even more once they deploy planned v2 on the chain. Which afaik is planned to happen very soon.
We plan to grow the chain significantly in the coming months through various grant and incentive campaigns and as Martin already said, Balancer/Balancer FF will definitely be at the forefront of protocols driving the Defi adoption on GC.
