First thing first. I’m not fighting over the protocols. I love all of them, especially Algofi (I have more liquidity on Algofi than Folks). I just tried to make another point.
You are right about communication. I also think it was so sudden. This should have not happened that way.
Decentralization… If I’m not wrong Algofi has some kind of control over the smart contracts unlike Folks. Tinyman and Humble uses airdrops for the farmers while Pact is doing it via smart contracts.
Has anyone asked them where the yield would go to? Would it return to this liquidity provision wallet to be used possibly to help other issues in the future? As long as they aren’t dumping it on the market and abide by the policy of not participating with this voting power then it’s the same as anyone adding liquidity no?
Not only the decentralization issues and airdrop of rewards vs smart contracts, but due to the fact that Pact had stablepool and Foundation was limited in options where IL wouldn’t be a factor, the only plausible strategy was gALGO/ALGO on Pact. That coupled with Folks’ ability to abstain from voting…seems like exactly what needed to happen if this trigger had to be pulled.
sorry but that is just BS. its the foundations fault that humble users cant use their decentralized farms and commit to governance, they said no to that
whats with the option of not providing liquidity at all? why does the foundation need to deploy liquidity? the stableswap is super efficient and the pool already has a high TVL
You may think the matter is “BS” but I don’t think it is. It’s not a matter of who did what, but a matter of using the right tool for the right job.
As for the option to not provide the liquidity at all. Clearly the Foundation feels it was necessary or they wouldn’t have done this. Given the high demand and the results we see, I’d have to push back on saying it wasn’t needed. The goal of the Foundation is to support the ecosystem and bring in new participants. This seems to check all the boxes. There will be more opportunities in the future for this kind of support to more projects in the ecosystem I would imagine.
i was about to write something that i might have regretted, but i will just ask you to gather all the information before commenting again on this topic to respect what humble and especially shaman did and are doing for the algorand community
and i say they are wrong on this imo. honestly them calling out the volume/TVL ratio says they dont understand how stableswaps work
What information is it you think I need to gather? I’ve been gathering for a bit now, so please enlighten me. I don’t feel I’m showing anyone any disrespect, I apologize if you feel that’s what I am doing. Your feelings are obviously very high about this so maybe take some time and compose yourself before doing any of these regretful things? Best regards.
This is definitely a transparency problem. If this much time is being spent on any decision, there is absolutely no reason why these topics should not be brought up and discussed with the community as a whole, whether that be an open forum or governance style vote. It may not ultimately alter the path chosen, but at the very least everyone is aware that it is a potential decision that needs to be made and can hear both sides of the argument. It would also provide the foundation with the ability to state their position and defend it prior to the change being made so that people can fully understand the WHY before any action is taken.
It would be fantastic if the foundation could provide a general roadmap of projects, issues or allocations they are working on with brief descriptions that the community could see and discuss openly. There may be items that are not able to exist on that list due to NDAs or agreements, but I do not see how this topic would be in that category.
Thank you for pointing that out. A protocol with smart contract upgradable should not even be considered, big red flag to me
in a perfect world we would only use protocols which are open-source and have non-upgradeable smart contracts or smart contracts that are upgradeable but controlled by a DAO. but it takes time to achieve that imo especially on such a young blockchain thats has its own virtual machine which isnt EVM compatible and thats why it shouldnt be about that yet imo