Changes to Lightning Liquidity Mining Program

30 days just seems like we will be constantly voting for the 3 categories constantly.

before we go and change this up, I feel we need to get the process right for tokens to be on the card for the next time, as I feel this was messed up the first time, and needs MUCH better guidance of how proposed tokens will come up on the list to vote for. This needs community involvement.

increasing the time right now before all the building blocks are in place is dangerous at best.

also - its not clear in the proposal - can you confirm the DEVs are no longer getting the 15% in the proposal, or can you please correct the values in the table so we are comparing apples to apples.

1 Like

yea @ravenxce can you please confirm the 15% dev is now in the pools. If it isnt, please adjust the table so it is representative of what the ACTUAL distribution is for comparison.

1 Like

I have 500 Zwaps, i support this

People make investment decisions based on the 90 days, new projects will just have to wait their turn, this makes me very uneasy about the credibility of zilswap

1 Like

Also the timing of this smells of desperation because the price of zwap is dropping, make more utility, not just introducing knee jerk proposals to just enrich the zwap price zwap holders

If zwap price was going up i garauntee u you would not be dropping this proposal

The excuse about letting pillar in is absolute garbage excuse

1 Like

And i can tell you right now a lot of community members are muttering under their breath at this lack of vision and consistency, this is knee jerk and amateur… giving reward love to small caps is what blew up zilswap and it was will keep blowing it with a frenzy, but if you make the zwap whales richer this place is going to be a zwap whale circle jerk, other dexes will be made and zilswap will fade market share

Smarten up and stop this knee jerk crap to enrichen zwap whales more which already have all the power

Move in this direction and this place will be a cesspool of zwap whales circle jerkin each other off

1 Like

Hi all!

  1. As suggested, I think we can split the proposal into 2 snapshot votes based on the two primary motivations:
    i) Reducing the round time to 30 days, and vote threshold to 10%. There will be 3 vote options: No. Yes with immediate effect. Yes but after the initial round of 90 days.
    ii) Increasing ZWAP share and changing the reallocation mechanism to favor the ZWAP pool. There will be 3 vote options: No. Yes with immediate effect. Yes but after the initial round of 30 / 90 days.

  2. Please take note that increasing ZWAP rewards will likely better support ZWAP price, allowing the effective reward value for other pools to be maintained.

  3. There is no proposed change in total amount allocated to LPs / dev fund. What I meant is that we don’t have a direct interest in which pool gets what. I am merely suggesting something that I think will be better for ZWAP holders and Zilswap in the long term.

  4. Lots of questions about utility and roadmap. ZWAP is primarily a governance token, with no built-in utility. That’s exactly why ZWAP holders should get to vote in a way that favors themselves - whether it is enriching themselves or, (ideally), extending the longevity of the protocol - it is the main use of the token after all.

    I will, however drop the team’s internal doc for V2, for the perusal of those with are able to decipher it (: Note that there are also other features coming up that will launch before V2, and not all the proposed features may make it to V2.


Round timing and vote threshold proposal up for Snapshot voting!

As usual, devs will abstain from voting.


Proposal for re-allocation of rewards up for Snapshot voting.

Devs will abstain from voting.


Man, you have no ZWAP! :joy:nWhy are you even here? If you don’t like the proposal get some ZWAP and vote against it!

1 Like

BSC CAKE concept is good because they are a centralized entity. They have funds and holdings of other tokens such that they can offer other tokens as rewards, and as other tokens provide LP, they earned CAKE and the whole ecosystem is set to self sustaining.

Whoever managing ZWAP, if possible, apply from zillacracy some funds to get other tokens in holding, if by preference to support zilliqa, then acquire those ZRC2 legit startup tokens.

Provide those rewards to ZWAP LP instead and provide ZWAPs to those startup LPs. This will start the cycle running IMO…

Rather than trying to concentrate more ZWAPs to wallets already holding ZWAP. The whole ecosystem will crash.

Yeah that is one good idea. From my conversation with the ZilSwap team, they are planning a launchpad for ZRC2 token projects. That will bring more utility to ZWAP.

There’s also other ideas about imitating BNT vortex implementation, which I am really a big fan of. i.e. Making ZWAP supply elastic instead of fixed. This implementation will allow for single-side liquidity provision and impermanent loss protection.


You moved way too fast. One thing that has not been highlighted is the fact that gZIL jumped to high cap. If we are rearranging rewards and pool classification then PORT and ZLP must be changed in relation.


During your reallocation you have moved gZil to the higher tier but you have not moved PORT or ZLP to their respective tiers now they are mid-cap tokens.

I assume this was oversight on your behalf and that, PORT & ZLP will actually move to the mid-cap tier that they are rightfully members of, inline with gZil?

This means your allocation should be:

High Cap - gZil
Mid Cap - XSCG, PORT & ZLP
Low Cap - Vote for tokens

Failure to do this and you are effectively harming two tokens that have contributed large amounts to the Zilliqa ecosystem and the proposal comes off as though you are picking and choosing your favourite tokens.


PORT , XSGD and ZLP must be placed as mid cap tokens as per the snapshot!


I completely agree, PORT, ZLP & XSCG should be moved into the mid-cap tier.


I agree this. If they will move gzil to high cap, same thing should happen to other tokens too.


Mid-cap token pools (5m < Market cap < 100m)

XSGD: 1452 ZWAP → 333 ZWAP
PORT: 165 ZWAP → 333 ZWAP
ZLP: 165 ZWAP → 333 ZWAP

This is correct version based on what you stated.

We don’t have projects in smallcap with zwap rewarded lps.

1 Like

ZLP deserves this growth in rewards. Absolutely lack of sense to receive little bits from the pie.

Pool rewards are killing ZLP holders. ZLP has to be in a mid cap pool