Amendments to Small-caps qualification requirements in LIP-1

Summary:

  • Lower the % vote required for a token to qualify for liquidity mining programme to 5%.
  • Rearrange the allocation of ZWAP rewards to qualified token on a pro-rata basis based on % votes acquired.
  • Cap the ZWAP reward allocation to a single qualified token at 25%.

Motivation:

As the purpose of the Lightning liquidity mining programme is to build liquidity for Small-caps and allow for the trading of longtail assets, it is essential to revisit the threshold set in LIP-1 for a token to qualify for ZWAP liquidity mining rewards. As such, the proposed value for qualification is lowered from 15% to 5%, but the reward allocation will be distributed on a pro-rata basis and capped at 20% per qualified token.

Specification:

Using the LIP-1 vote as sample, the old reward allocation is as such:

- PORT = 165.27 ZWAP
- ZLP = 165.27 ZWAP
- BOLT = 165.27 ZWAP

With the new changes as proposed in this LIP, the reward allocation will be as such:

- PORT = 123.95ZWAP
- ZLP = 123.95 ZWAP
- BOLT = 101.15 ZWAP
- REDC = 69.67 ZWAP
- ZCH = 77.07 ZWAP

Therefore, if this LIP is voted in and formalised, the reward allocation will be changed to conform with the above, giving both REDC and ZCH liquidity mining rewards in the first season of Lightning.

  • For
  • Against

0 voters

2 Likes

This is not right. We have already voted based on the rules that was laid out for LIP1. Port, ZLP and Bolt have passed the qualification for 15% for season 1. RedC and ZCH clearly did not make the cut.
By calling for another vote to try and change the results of LIP1, it is making a mockery of the democratic process and is overruling the decentralised governance that ZWAP is meant for.
If changes were proposed, it should only start from the second season of Lightning. This maintains the integrity of our votes for LIP1 and instills confidence that the governance actually works.

9 Likes

I think we already voted on a similar proposal. So please let’s move forward! thanks

5 Likes

It is not right that Bolt has received ZWAP rewards thanks to whale vote that owns 50% of total supply and ready to dump on LP.
This will make it more fair for all projects on Zilswap.

3 Likes

I somewhat agree with your sentiments. This proposal is put out to gauge whether there is any interest to amend LIP-1.

Our DAO is still young, so imo it will take some time for the voting process to be formalised.

1 Like

ZWAP voting is based on ZWAP holdings, nothing to do with BOLT LP itself. If you wish to discuss removal of BOLT, please go ahead and create a separate proposal.

3 Likes

zillinkpower

Similan

1m

I concur, the ZCH pool is so small and most of the tokens are with the founders. If this passes, the token founders can easily flood the LP without losses and earn maximum $ZWAPs turning this into a vicious cycle of monopoly.

3 Likes

This is wrong. Anyone could create 50 accounts to vote and therefore should have no bearing on what gets voted on. These types of action give off a certain odor that pushes new investors away.

4 Likes

No democracy, So what vote was a joke? Come on, this is ridiculous!!!

5 Likes

This is a signal vote for gauging interest in the proposal, it is not binding like Snapshot voting. The real voting starts when the proposal is moved there, then it will be 1 ZWAP = 1 vote.

2 Likes

That’s why pro-rata is the best solution for all projects involved. Otherwise, if you remove Bolt it will hurt investors that already bought Bolt. If you don’t give rewards to REDC and ZCH you will have angry people talking about whale voting manipulation which will not be good for the platform and ZWAP in general, because people will think no point voting cause one whale can easily manipulate results anyway. This is to support the growth of Zilliqa as truly decentralized platform. Whale voting is centralized.

2 Likes

This is an interesting proposal because it brings up the following question.

If a proposal passes, how long before another proposal can be created to override that proposal?

3 Likes

This is totally not right. In comparison to real world voting and governance this is equivalent to changing the presidential candidate after the vote has been counted.

How can the vote counted still be valid if the rules of the proposal is changed.

3 Likes

Whale voting is not right for sure, but i believe that is for another proposal to fix altogether. If the rules of the previous proposal is to be changed then i believe it is only fair for the entire vote to be recounted.

1 Like

no it is not, one whale has voted as if 800 people voted in real world one person equals one vote.

1 Like

There is no such thing as whale voting against the interest of the ZilSwap platform. ZWAP whales = the biggest LPs in the system. They take the risk to provide liquidity to the system for it to work and hence they have the biggest say of how the system should work (ZWAP earned via liquidity mining). That is the reason why 1 ZWAP = 1 vote.

If you have issues with people voting for BOLT with their ZWAP, then create a proposal to remove BOLT from the incentive pool list. Let all the ZWAP holders should have the final say.

1 Like

that only shows how greedy you are, and it will hurt the ecosystem in a long term. nobody will come to the platform if they know their vote is worthless. Even if it was one vote per account it would be much difficult to manipulated.

2 Likes

I somewhat agree with your sentiments. Hence, this proposal is still in the discussion stage. Now, it is about polling where the sentiments swing towards. If everyone agree to move this discussion till the next season (after 90 days), then we shall do so.

Bolt inclusion was wrong yet is has been accepted, so it is only fair if the rewards are redistributed pro-rata.

1 Like

This is not a democracy. It is governance of a platform (traditionally a company) that earn fees for its LPs (traditionally shareholders). Only the interest of the LPs matters.

1 Like