SPS Governance Proposal - Expand Market Making Contract with Flowdesk
DAO Sponsored Proposal
The DAO recently passed a proposal to establish an exchange fund. The proposal has multiple components and I've had myself and several others review the wording of the proposal to ensure that myself and others understand the proposal as written. With that said, I think there are some logistical problems with that proposal as written and I am making this proposal with the aim to allow the DAO an opportunity to address the biggest issue I see with that proposal.
As written, the proposal only allows access to the unallocated token supply to negotiate any listings until the SPS price is above $0.10. This part makes sense. The will of the DAO is to ensure that no SPS is sold under a set price to fund the proposal. The logistical concern is that this restricts our ability to pursue a market maker, which is essentially a prerequisite to engaging the exchanges.
I've spent a good bit of time discussing the situation with our current contracted market maker to negotiate a better rate for us that comes in well below budget and to ask for favorable terms that should help us be in a position to execute on any tier 1 exchange listing opportunities that could arise. If the will of the DAO is to be in a position to pursue a tier 1 exchange in the next year, we need to strongly consider taking the first step to position ourselves to do so.
If this proposal passes the SPS DAO will allocate an additional $68,000 USDC from the DAO treasury wallet on the BSC network to expand our market making coverage to all 5 of our centralized exchange pairs. This upgrade will also include arbitrage trading on the Pancakeswap SPS:WBNB pool to hedge our liquidity positions. The SPS DAO will provide Flowdesk an additional $100,000 USDC and $100,000 worth of SPS from the DAO treasury wallet on the BSC network to increase liquidity reserves across all trading pairs, which can be recalled upon completion of the contract.
If this proposal passes, we'll be converting our current contract to these new terms and will be credited the remaining balance of the old contract. This means that we'll have roughly 8 months of service under these new terms before our contract expires since we're amending our old contract that has been active for a little over 3 months now. Flowdesk has also agreed that if we get a new listing during the duration of this contract that they're willing to convert one of the pairs (SPS:ETH on Gate.io) to cover the new listing immediately.
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @clayboyn!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2024-04-15 14:43 UTC
Top tier work, Clay you are a Splinterlands treasure
I'm completely confused with these exchange proposals.
What is the original ?, what's the amendment ?, what passed, what didn't, what were the amendments to the amendment.
How are the money movements changing ?, what are we getting for our money ?
All very unclear to me.
Give that level of confusion, and in my view mess.
I will abstain, as I have no clue what the implications of a vote one way or another is.
This is what previously passed:
https://peakd.com/spsproposal/@clayboyn/sps-governance-proposal-contract-market-maker-for-cryptocom
Here's a pretty detailed post I made to try to educate people on exchanges and market makers if you're interested in learning about this stuff:
https://peakd.com/sps/@clayboyn/a-discussion-about-sps-exchanges-and-market-makers
In general it's a pretty complex topic, but the ELI5/TLDR is basically this:
We pay a firm to manage our liquidity on centralized exchanges so that we can maintain/enhance our listings so that we can make our token easier to buy and sell and hopefully make our way to new exchanges.
Hi, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I have previously read your post explaining exchanges /market makers etc., that was great info, it helped me form an opinion and understand the commercial side of the process a bit better
What I'm having difficulty keeping track of is what has passed, what amendments were made via new proposals and exactly where we stand now with.
I guess I'm conflating the exchange listing proposals and the market maker proposals in my mind, I doubt I'm the only one.
I see now that this proposal is an expansion of the one that passed, that was the link I was missing.
Right, this is essentially a response proposal based on the previous proposal passing. It's under the budget outlined in that proposal, even if we opt to extend the contract for another year.
Yes Great, 8 months tho oef i just hope we preseed that deadline. Better yesterday!!! lol
So we reduce payments to the community for providing liquidity and increase payments to 3rd parties to provide liquidity? Is the DAO getting superior value compared to community provided liquidity?
Well it's a fair question and definitely worth considering. It's also probably worth considering we've spent more than the entire year worth of contract fees outlined in this proposal just renting the liquidity in those LPs from the community every single month for the last 2 years. That's if you count the inflation we have been paying out at current SPS price by the way, which means we've been paying out multiples of this ask per month for most of the last 2 years.
im guessing spreads are wider and you can use dswap to capture additional yield if you set it up right.
I have significant legal concerns regarding the DAO proposal that passed, mentioned in this proposal, regarding an exchange listing.
When the DAO hired Clayboyn, it was to become an organizer and voice for the DAO, because legally speaking, Clayboyn could not become part of the DAO or an extension of the DAO.
The reason for this, is that if Clayboyn starts to act on behalf of the DAO in ways that a DAO does not operate, such as negotiate on behalf of the DAO and pursuing the execution of deals, with the DAO's money, that are not recorded on the blockchain in a trustless way and/or not disclosed to the DAO because of NDA's,the DAO is no longer a Decentralized Autonomous Organization, and both Clayboyn and the DAO funds can become the target of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) and/or the target of civil lawsuits brought by individual SPS token holders.
As one of the first functioning gaming DAO's we should take great care and responsibility of not putting our DAO, and anyone who organizes on it's behalf, in significant legal jeopardy.
I have my own concerns with the previous proposal, which is why I made this one with clear terms and an offer from a company that is fine both working with a DAO and being publicly transparent about their terms. Does this particular proposal seem transparent enough? I didn't make the other proposal and don't plan to start operating recklessly.
This one is much more transparent and straight forward, as for 'transparent enough', I would have to research more and understand how the payments would be made. i.e. direct from the DAO to the MM in a blockchain transaction, or through you or Matt etc.
This proposal also states that it is aiming to fix the most glaring issue with the previous proposal, which implies that if this were to pass, it would be more likely then not, moving forward or attempting to move forward. My understanding of the law would make moving forward with the previous proposal, even with this proposal passing, impossible without seriously exposing yourself and the DAO to potentially significant lawsuits.
I think it would also be beneficial for you personally to look into how some of the existing finance DAOs operate in regard to deals/partnerships/payments etc.
I will also be looking into how they operate to understand what the understood standard operating procedures are for DAOs.
I share your concerns about our D(A)O's situation and would welcome greater clarity and transparency.
Did the removal of the rewards widen the spread at all on the main pairs on he?
All I have to say is please prove me wrong that all of this is worth it and we are not just throwing away more money of what little is left. I seriously hope I'm proven wrong otherwise I'm not sure Splinterlands is going to survive. The focus should be on DEX platforms not CEX
I can't really speculate on whether or not "this is all worth it." I can only aim to enact the will of the DAO within the scope to which it is possible to do so. That said, I am very much focused on the DEX situation and you can expect to see more about that soon. I'm trying to get us ready to deploy on all the main EVMs.