Putting together this proposal was incredibly difficult and complex. The methodology has to be fair to all across the board and not on a case-by-case basis.
I outlined the events in my last post. It’s impossible to compensate people on a case-by-case basis because any claim will have to be ratified by the DAO. But the methodology outlined below is what I believe to be fair.
Compensation
For those who lost due to setting the initial pool incorrectly
- 55
HNY
- 200
Agve
For everyone who traded until liquidity was added to the weth-agve pair
- 200
AGVE
Between pulling the liquidity from the HNY/AGVE
pool and creating the WETH/AGVE
pool, there remains a 55 HNY
surplus in the Agave DAO. An additional 400 AGVE
would also be allocated to boost the compensation. Those who are determined to be at a loss will have a share of this 55 HNY
and 200 AGVE
.
Additionally, anyone who traded AGVE up until the second pool was opened will also share an additional 200 AGVE
Criteria
- users who bought above 50$ (in the first pool before the liquidity was pulled) and could not sell with a gain or breaking even.
- share of the compensation is calculated by taking the difference between what you bought and sold
- we then sum the total losses and allocate a share of
- 55
HNY
and 200 `AGVE
- 55
There is also an additional 200 AGVE that will be split between everyone who traded before the liquidity was reintroduced to the new pair WETH-AGVE.
- Excluded from the list are accounts identified as trading bots and the liquidity pools themselves
Payout document
- Retributions Tab: Trading activity for participating accounts
- Payout Tab: Simplified list of accounts and amounts to be paid
Summary
Again, this is not perfect. But I encourage everyone to read the supporting documents and share their thoughts and opinions. I also think it will be helpful for other proposals on how to move forward. This proposal should include methodology and the amounts due to be paid out.
Lastly, I would like to thank everyone for their patience over the last week and for contributing to the discussion. As I have mentioned before, governance is not simply the act of voting. The shaping of the conversations is also significant.
special thanks to @luigy for putting in so much effort, collecting the data in this proposal
UPDATE
The first votes are live. check out this thread for an explanation of what the votes do