Aligning on 1Hive direction, Organisational Apps take priority

[metaverde]

Honeyswap doesn’t need a swarm to maintain it is my point.
Or if there is a swarm to maintain Honeyswap that should be all they do.
My understanding previously was that there was a general consensus to have Gardens maintain Honeyswap and do the related work.
Procuring partnerships should be a separate swarm from maintaining Honeyswap.
I thought BuzzDAO was the partnership team.

[metaverde]

Talking about reviving Tulip, or creating any new dev dependent swarm related to Honeyswap is going to require much better devrel.
There shouldn’t be any proposals for development without first procuring the devs. We’ve driven away some seriously good people. This needs attention before anything else, really.

[twells]

gotta say…this top 10 pairs list looks mighty fine : )

[altcoins]

Long productive asset blockchain projects

Short pie-in-the-sky promise projects with anonymous founders and 50k egg profile picture followers on Twitter.

I think this crypto readjustment has people pivoting out of disappointing top 10 crypto projects and into more quality projects, like xDAI/GNO or HNY.

[s_ben]

Heartening to see HNY back up:)

I wonder if this will shift priorities, as token price being down for a while has introduced scarcity into the conversation, and influenced discussion of priorities.

[willjgriff]

Thank you everyone for your responses, it seems there is rough agreement on all suggestions besides defunding Tulip. To be clear Honeyswap on xDai should not be deprecated and maintenance to ensure it operates as it does currently should be prioritised, but new features should not, as there’s no clear evidence that they will create significantly more demand for Honey which is absolutely necessary at this stage of our development. Also it must be understood that liquidity matching with other organisations has no relationship to Tulip and doesn’t require Tulip to orchestrate.

@sem

I think adding Tulip to the discussion is unfortunate and adds noise that do not let us see the big picture.

I disagree, Tulip is one of the main areas 1Hive bees are actively seeking funds for and it requires a lot of resources (funds and workers) so it must be discussed.

@Monstrosity

my understanding of gardens voting is there is no ‘No’ vote and a blanket defunding seems to conflict with this idea of there being no ‘No’ vote.

There is no explicit “No” vote, but that is why this post has been made, as we absolutely have to prioritise things that will create a significant return and sustain Honey in the short to medium term, which Tulip does not in its current form.

@D0SH

DeFi is the main focus orgs and groups would use our tools for

No it isn’t. This is clear from the established organisations deploying Gardens (BrightId, Giveth, Maroon5) and others using our org infrastructure (TEC, Gitcoin). To build, maintain and sell novel DeFi products that would attract the same amount of interest is far too large a lift and won’t generate the return expected, especially considering our competitors on xDai, eg Cowswap.

@twells

it is my understanding that the initial deployment of Honeyswap was more out of necessity than a desire to become a DeFi innovator on xDai.

Correct, this is why we deployed Uniswap to xDai. @lkngtn Took the lead on pursuing wider DeFi projects on xDai which is why he set up Tulip but unfortunately his interest, amongst others in the community including mine and any competent solidity engineers, ultimately diminished. In my case it was because it never managed to have the competitive edge it needed in terms of effective coordination as well as interest from the wider crypto community, necessary for adoption. Note that without competent Solidity engineers, which Tulip currently lacks as pointed out here, very little that would provide significant value can be built.

@paul

I do think Honeyswap is itself an Organizational App since, as shown in the Veneto Garden setup, DAOs need liquidity to function.

Of course organisations need liquidity and a place to exchange value, but for most organisations that’s as far as it goes and Honeyswap in it’s current form provides this.

@s_ben

I wonder if this will shift priorities, as token price being down for a while has introduced scarcity into the conversation, and influenced discussion of priorities.

This shouldn’t shift priorities, Honey doubled in value over the period of a few hours, it can halve in value in the same amount of time.

[D0SH]

@willjgriff

Also it must be understood that liquidity matching with other organisations has no relationship to Tulip and doesn’t require Tulip to orchestrate.

Liquidity matching is the best we can do since we can’t provide dual farming rewards which has been a sentiment in every single meeting. Sorry Will but with all due respect you have not been in any of those so you don’t really know what you are talking about.

@willjgriff

No it isn’t. This is clear from the established organisations deploying Gardens (BrightId, Giveth, Maroon5) and others using our org infrastructure (TEC, Gitcoin). To build, maintain and sell novel DeFi products that would attract the same amount of interest is far too large a lift and won’t generate the return expected, especially considering our competitors on xDai, eg Cowswap.

I think you misunderstood the point i was trying to make. The vast majority of projects out there are DeFi, the project you have listed that are using Gardens are teams that have been partners with 1Hive for a very long time. Are you saying that we don’t want DeFi related projects to use our tools?

[willjgriff]

@D0SH

Liquidity matching is the best we can do since we can’t provide dual farming rewards which has been a sentiment in every single meeting. Sorry Will but with all due respect you have not been in any of those so you don’t really know what you are talking about.

The most recent Tulip proposal doesn’t include the development of farms. And the Solidity project you suggest forking here: Tulip Funding Proposal - #6 by D0SH is big, will need to be understood and may not even suit your needs. If it is it’s also likely to require some changes to meet whatever needs you expect to have and afaik there isn’t anyone capable of working on that. Even if there was, the return for developing farms at this stage doesn’t seem to be worth the cost given the limited details regarding potential partnerships shared in posts.

@D0SH

Are you saying that we don’t want DeFi related projects to use our tools?

No, obviously not. But DeFi projects aren’t in need of more DeFi tools, they’re in need of organisational primitives.

[D0SH]

@willjgriff

The most recent Tulip proposal doesn’t include the development of farms. And the Solidity project you suggest forking here: Tulip Funding Proposal - #6 by D0SH is big, will need to be understood and may not even suit your needs. If it is it’s also likely to require some changes to meet whatever needs you expect to have and afaik there isn’t anyone capable of working on that. Even if there was, the return for developing farms at this stage doesn’t seem to be worth the cost given the limited details regarding potential partnerships shared in posts.

The most recent proposal has various links in it one including a Roadmap. 3rd on the list is dual rewards Ideas for a Honeyswap roadmap. As for the contract side of things we are going with these ones as they have various audits and are being studied by @saltorious to implement.We also have the support of the team that wrote them to help us out if needed. You are welcome to join the Tulip call and see what is being planned.

@willjgriff

No, obviously not. But DeFi projects aren’t in need of more DeFi tools, they’re in need of organisational primitives.

I agree here, but why limit the ability features one can have? Last call @gabi spoke up a longer term future for Gardens were we could build out tools similar to how gnosis has integrated apps. These defi tools will be falling under that category of tooling as they will be offered to garden daos.

[metaverde]

@D0SH

Last call @gabi spoke up a longer term future for Gardens were we could build out tools similar to how gnosis has integrated apps. These defi tools will be falling under that category of tooling as they will be offered to garden daos.

@eenti

Expanding our efforts to provide the right tools to build liquidity, we want to be able to provide permissionless farms where everyone can specify the LP and provide the desired token for rewards.

In this context it seems very much that the diy farms should be part of the Gardens protocol, especially since one of our goals is to help DAOs generate and maintain liquidity, our own included.

Which brings me to this:

@eenti

We’ll now be receiving the HNY bought back from the protocol fee directly into our multisig to be used to cover expenses and fund other initiatives.

What exactly does this mean?
Where is the Honey currently going?

Thank-you,
meta🐝

Come for the Honey .
Stay for the Bees .

[eenti]

@metaverde

In this context it seems very much that the diy farms should be part of the Gardens protocol, especially since one of our goals is to help DAOs generate and maintain liquidity, our own included.

I wouldn’t mind, my only concern and everything I’ve been talking about was just to not let Honeyswap die, I’m ok with whatever.

@metaverde

What exactly does this mean?
Where is the Honey currently going?

They’re actually going to the common pool and I thought that would be nice to receive them directly to cover maintenance expenses.

Anyways I don’t think the change will happen.

[gabi]

@D0SH

Last call @gabi spoke up a longer term future for Gardens were we could build out tools similar to how gnosis has integrated apps. These defi tools will be falling under that category of tooling as they will be offered to garden daos.

I indeed consider that Gardens could and eventually should integrate new tools that are valuable for every existing Garden. I may not explain myself clearly though. I don’t think the same model that worked for Gnosis where they allow integrations with every available dapps is a good alternative for Gardens. As I believe both have two separate goals as products.

On one hand, Gnosis became the default multi-sig vault where a DAO could manage their funds with a well-tested and extensible solution.

On the other hand, Gardens allow communities to disburse a common pool of funds in a bottom-up way, giving everyone in the community a voice.

I am not sure which other tool could be included in Gardens at this point. And I am still skeptical that a DeFi tool would win vs a new organization primitive. Happy to be proven wrong.

[D0SH]

@gabi

I am not sure which other tool could be included in Gardens at this point. And I am still skeptical that a DeFi tool would win vs a new organization primitive. Happy to be proven wrong.

I think in general all tools we could come up with that DAOs could use are good tools, i don’t think one can beat the other one as they are not measured in the same scope. What i do know is defi tools that we allow other DAOs to use in conjunction with Honeyswap will bring in revenues for 1hive(note we are talkin about DIY farms for other DAOs to create pairs and reward tokens).

As far the general direction of how we see Gardens and how we can improve it for the future cant be limited by 1 party. Everyone may have their own perception but we all have a common goal.

[metaverde]

I’m thinking, and I may be wrong, that the objection is that a Tulip swarm with a direct revenue feed from Honeyswap, especially when half of Honeyswap’s revenue is diverted to questionable COMB buybacks, is an extreme overreach.

The current proposal, in my opinion, is tone deaf to the issues that tanked Tulip in the first place.

Honeyswap does not exist to be a revenue stream for Tulip swarm.

Let’s define our goals and the value of the goals outside of the context of tapping into the 50% of Honeyswap’s income that still goes to the common pool.

[D0SH]

For everyone that is interested in this subject there is a call scheduled tomorrow. Please see event on Discord

[willjgriff]

@D0SH

I think in general all tools we could come up with that DAOs could use are good tools

Not when we don’t have the resources to produce them. We need to focus on the highest leverage tools until we’re in a more sustainable position.

@D0SH

As far the general direction of how we see Gardens and how we can improve it for the future cant be limited by 1 party.

It isn’t limited by one party. We’ve been planning and refining Gardens and all the individual features for years through regular discussion and experimentation amongst many parties.

[D0SH]

@willjgriff

Not when we don’t have the resources to produce them. We need to focus on the highest leverage tools until we’re in a more sustainable position.

We have a full team ready and capable and have passed a proposal so again not sure were u are getting this sentiment. Can you expand on this? Also when you say the highest leverage are you saying that our governance tools are what brought people in? From my recollection the vast majority of people joined 1Hive for Honeyswap as well as the faucet not for CV and later on Celeste.

@willjgriff

It isn’t limited by one party. We’ve been planning and refining Gardens and all the individual features for years through regular discussion and experimentation amongst many parties.

The gardens team may have planed and built what they have right now, but you are claiming “we” as in who?? I certainly im not for limiting peoples ideas that are viable. I mean the idea of a DAO is to have a wide variety of views, and input so i don’t see how you and the people that have built gardens can decide what can be added when its a product that the whole community owns. It really sounds here that whatever the gardens team decide is what is best for all of 1Hive without taking into consideration other members views.

[Blackbus]

@willjgriff

Considering this and the increasing fragmentation of 1Hive into many unrelated projects and self-governed swarms, some change is necessary

This is what I see as the biggest challenge we face. The economics of HNY aren’t as important as cleaning up information streams and making it clear what we offer, what our apps are, where our funds are allocated and what is happening around the DAO. This needs to be clear and simple for someone who has just found 1hive, but right now it is clear that it is difficult for even the veterans to have a grasp on everything going on.

Let’s not chuck the baby out with the bathwater, but definitely organising better should definitely be a priority going forward.

Finally, I wanted to state my opinion that our DAO took a big hit in terms of interest and interaction when XDAI stagnated. This more than anything else saw our growth stop. Now that Gnosis have merged and rebranded I am hopeful we can see growth on the chain start again and more demand come across for the whole ecosystem.

[metaverde]

@D0SH

We have a full team ready and capable and have passed a proposal so again not sure were u are getting this sentiment.

You have a full team of strong in Solidity defi developers?
Who?

@D0SH

It really sounds here that whatever the gardens team decide is what is best for all of 1Hive without taking into consideration other members views.

My entire issue with Tulip swarm was that process, transparency, and community involvement were all lacking. It was clearly a misunderstanding, but I see recent Tulip proposals attempting to pick up with exactly what blew that swarm up. Hopefully the call tomorrow will clear up some missing communication.

[willjgriff]

@D0SH

We have a full team ready and capable and have passed a proposal so again not sure were u are getting this sentiment. Can you expand on this?

The capability of which is unproven and considering previous attempts and the diminishing value of Honey at this stage it’s too risky.

@D0SH

From my recollection the vast majority of people joined 1Hive for Honeyswap as well as the faucet not for CV and later on Celeste.

Which is great but right now what matters is what will create a demand for the Honey token.

@D0SH

I mean the idea of a DAO is to have a wide variety of views, and input so i don’t see how you and the people that have built gardens can decide what can be added when its a product that the whole community owns.

We’re not dictating what can and can’t be added, the arguments for Tulip have been laid out but they’re not convincing enough.