Aligning on 1Hive direction, Organisational Apps take priority

[s_ben]

Want to second this. While I get the need to focus resources, I think Honeyswap adds a lot of value, for a couple reasons:

• Sentimentality/values: I’m a fairly regular user of Honeyswap. Not a whale, but regularly make trades in the hundreds to thousands of dollars. I typically keep at least a grand or two in the pools. Because it’s the cheapest or best return? No. Because it’s a solid product, and a way to support 1hive, which feels like a high leverage way to support values I hold. It feels good to use. This may be irrational, and I will happily stop using it if it’s in the best interests of the community to stop using (following this thread closely). I’m also not likely the only person doing this?
• Strategic positionality: lots of capital is flowing into Gnosis chain right now. Demands for basic infrastructure to invest in outstrips supply. When 1Hive was added to that Gnosis infra index (De-xDai) a couple days ago, likely contributing to the bump in HNY price, was the existence of a DEX part of the rationale? Also, as we have seen lately with D2D deals (token listings, liquidity sharing agreements, co-marketing, etc), Honeyswap can be an instrument for collaboration. It allows non-dev community members to “program” value flows from a high level. And it seems some deals of late are indeed adding value (e.g. Fox liquidity sharing).
• Revenue: it’s maybe not a lot, but it’s something. And now that the machine is going, why not let it roll, buyback some HNY. This on-chain activity could also be picked up and amplified in unknown ways.

The three main factors I see are:

• How expensive is maintenance mode here (in HNY, dev bandwidth, and dev morale (devs like coding new things and opportunities to do so are a valuable form of compensation)?
• Does Honeyswap need to upgrade to v3, or will v2 be enough for a while. Kinda turned off by v3 licensing and trading off of composability for capital efficiency, especially if looking to support “long tail” assets like smaller DAO tokens. Though I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here.
• Does it distract from more important initiatives strategically (e g if Paul can’t work on this will he do more valuable work on Gardens or Celeste, or will he be demotivated)?

Just a smol holder and not deep in the community atm, but just wanted to add my 2 HNY from the perspectives I’m tracking

[metaverde]

I think some people reading this thread are equating maintaining Honeyswap and Farms as necessitating Tulip swarm, but this is not the case at all.

Yes Honeyswap is important and amazing, but a dex run by a decentralized community isn’t meant to be competitive in the financial markets. It’s an experiment.

I don’t understand why DAO to DAO partnerships, even bringing in liquidity and creating new Farms, needs to be Tulip swarm.
Haven’t Bees been developing partnerships and bringing in liquidity even without Tulip?

I recorded a few Tulip meetings.
I would have to go back through them to well articulate what the issues are with Tulip as a separate swarm.

[eenti]

@metaverde

necessitating Tulip swarm, but this is not the case at all

The issue is you thinking because is named Tulip is meant to be or do the same thing, can’t the same people involved in the D2D stuff and so just take the name of the swarm? If the issue is the name we can just change it. It’s just a name, y’all have to chill a bit with the judgment based on others work.

Some folks maintaining Honeyswap is absolutely needed, call the swarm however you want.

[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.