Thanks for making this post so early to give clarification on what happened - everyone makes mistakes so don’t beat yourself up about it. I don’t believe you should have to give your own HNY, especially 40 of them, and you should get those back from the dao or perhaps even from the 1hive/honeyswap common pool. It’s just bad luck but you as the individual should not have to wear that whole cost <3
2 Likes
Is the price still going to change by magnitude of 10? I’m a little confused, because the HNY:AGVE ratio is still 1:8 rather than the 1:200 I was expecting. Did the market cap just increase through an error that showed the true interest in the project?
2 Likes
Yea, i am interested in understanding this as well @Blackbus. I know the price got distorted due to he incorrect amounts of initial tokens in the pool, but when the rest of the liquidity was added, i was hoping that the AMM would do its thing and the market would arbitrage and get the price back to where it was supposed to be. Unless there was so much buy side pressure that the price actually did jack up like 25x?? Anyone else here if you understand could you provide a reasoning please? Sorry may be a newbie question.
1 Like
Congrats on the launch! Thank you for the transparency and your quick solution . 
2 Likes
1:200 was intended for initial launch. It ended up being 1:20. Once everything we reverted a new pool was opened with the remaining agave. It was a weth-agave pool that was created at the exact same ratio of 1:200. As people buy the AGVE the ratio changes.
2 Likes
find a reasonable rate to honor those initial trades… I updated my inital response…perhaps honor thoose inital trades at a fixed rate say maybe 1:50 or 1:100… hny:agave …something reasonable im only brainstorming…then distribute agave from remaining 72% held by DAO… or use hny to buy agve then distribute or combination
2 Likes
This is a human error and there are many reasons why this happened, it was not intentional and I thank you for making the case completely clear and this plan will definitely be more welcomed.
3 Likes
@GreenHornet I think at worst I bought 4 agave for 2 hny, it’s annoying but I don’t blame anyone it’s just a mistake.
I just wanted to say these days people don’t like to admit their mistakes, it’s ur type of honesty and humility that has brought me to xDai 1hive community. Please return the personal HNY to green hornet I don’t expect him to cover it.
I also would prefer if there is any compensation for it to be made in AGAVE, I was trying to buy it and that’s all I want for my HNY.
Again learn from this get the website up and I am telling ya this will be forgotten, when site is up we will get another leg up
4 Likes
I wasn’t awake or involved in this launch, but after reading through this thread, chatting with people on a call this morning, and reading through some of the conversation on the discord, I wanted to share my thoughts on what happened and what seems like (imo) reasonable next steps…
- Incorrect ratio at launch
Due to a mistake when creating the the pool the intended launch ratio between Honey and Agave was off by a factor of 10. The result was only 1000 Agave being paired with Honey instead of 10000.
- Unexpected WETH Liquidity Pool
After this was realized, the remainder of the Agave allocated for liquidity was paired with WETH at the original intended price, causing a supply shock (as 9x the amount of Agave that was currently on the market entered the market at a significantly lower price).
In my opinion this should not have happened, but it did and here we are. Instead the remainder should have been dripped into the market by selling AGVE for honey and pairing over time, allowing the market to find a fair price without introducing an additional instantaneos and unnanticipated supply shock.
- One large buyer got a much better deal than anyone else and have become a mega-whale
The starting price for AGVE seems to have been significantly lower than what the market believes AGVE to be worth, and due to how AMM like honeyswap work a single trader using a bot was able to snipe a large portion of AGVE at sub-market rates. This would have been the case whether or not the first two issues had happened… and anyone who was not this initial trader would NOT have gotten the initial starting rate.
In future token releases we should design a much better mechanism to introduce liquidity without knowing the true market price. But luckily the trader who capitalized intends to do OTC trades with people to make the circulating supply less concentrated while minimizing disruption on the market.
- Only 1% of the AGVE supply was paired with honey rather than 10%, the remaining 9% was paired with WETH.
This means that people had to sell honey for WETH in order to pair with AGVE, which was not intended, and it means that the intended tight relationship between Honey and Agave has been diluted by a factor of 10. This is largely the reason why the HNY price has fallen significant since the launch, as HNY holders had to sell HNY for WETH in order to get AGVE at the best rate. (Its also worth noting that, its likely that the expectation of this pairing also contributed to the recent increase in the price of HNY over the past few weeks)
I think this can be rectified relatively easily, by creating a contract and moving the WETH:AGVE LP shares into it. The Contract would then facilitate the conversion of these LPs into HNY:AGVE LPs by selling WETH for HNY at the market rate (while ensuring that this is done in increments that are small enough not move the market price by more than some slippage margin).
- In the confusion many traders may have executed trades that they now regret and are frustrated due liquidity not being added as anticipated.
I think this is legitimate concern, the process of adding liquidity was communicated explicitly and then was not executed in the manner communicated, liquidity was added first at a higher price than expected, and then a significantly larger amount of AGVE was introduced to the market at a much lower price. at the time of writing this, and approximately 12 hours of trading, the market price is somewhere between these numbers (though it is also seems to be steadily rising). So while people who were buying always new how much agave they were getting in their trades, and how much the circulating supply was going to be post launch, they may have easily missed the liquidity issue in the initial pool, and didn’t know or expect a much larger chunk of liquidity to be added shortly thereafter at a much lower price.
All things considered this was a botched launch both in terms of how the initial liquidity was added and how the issue with the initial mistake was subsequently dealt with, but it is also important to recognize the traders are responsible for their own trading decisions and if you made a trade for AGVE at any point you had enough information available to know how much you were getting and how much you were paying for that trade
It’s unclear to me how we should go about providing compensation for traders who traded on the initial pool. I think some compensation is warranted as gesture of good faith because the execution did not go as planned and created unnecessary confusion and more complicated trading dynamics that was were not intended or expected, but its not really possible (nor do I think its warranted) to directly attempt rectify, revert, or provide refunds as the token is actively being traded… Instead I think we can consider creating a proposal airdrop AGVE tokens to traders where on-chain data indicates they were negatively impacted by the surprise introduction of the AGVE:WETH pool.
I would propose the following, we take some amount of the unallocated AGVE from the DAO, and we distribute it proportionally to traders who participated in the first pool using the following method:
- We measure the market price as a time weighted average price over the course of 24-48 hours after trading started.
- We tabulate how much and which addresses bought before the WETH pool was launched at a rate higher than that from the initial pool. The difference between the amount they bought (above the market price) and sold and the measured market price becomes a refrence for a compesatory airdrop.
- We airdrop a fixed amount of AGVE set asside for compensation proportionally to wallets based on this calculated value.
This wont attempt to provide traders with AGVE at the initial rate nor any other specific rate (since the rate changes with the first trade, and even the first trade has slippage from that ratio)… And it won’t necessarily fully offset the delta between what they payed and what the measured market price ends up being entirely (traders are still responsible for their trading decisions) but it does recognize that there was a mistake in the launch and that the DAO values these early traders as community members who tried to get in during the earliest stages and amid all the confusion, and wants to give them something as a gesture of good faith and recognition of the botched launch and associated confusion and market instability.
25 Likes
Thanks for your explanation…agve got my interest for these days now…wish u the bests
1 Like
Respect man. Good work anyway, we all make mistakes.
Well done, this is all part of the journey. As stated above, the transparency and the gesture to refund is a clear indication that this is being run by upright individuals. This is a project I would contribute to and be able to sleep soundly at night.
3 Likes
I’m sure this is just an initial plan to be discussed further.
But upon quick reading, this part
- We tabulate how much and which addresses bought before the WETH pool was launched at a rate higher than that from the initial pool. The difference between the amount they bought (above the market price) and sold and the measured market price becomes a refrence for a compesatory airdrop.
makes me wonder, You mean only realized losses should be compensated?
Does this address buys before the WETH pool launch that where affected by the price difference?
I know, must be hard to find a satisfactory solution to all. How about a proportional airdrop based on traded volume before WETH pool?
Both buys and sells counting to the weighted average.
Those who bought, have their buy weighted, those who sold get both the buy and sell weighted.
Doesn’t this sound more fair?
Those who sold in the first pool could have proftted from the pandemonium. I think it actually makes more sense to only compensate unrealized losses. But we might be able to compensate both realized and unrealized losses. It just is more complicated
1 Like
lol, 1:20? I got something like 1:6 
I agree that unrealized losses should also receive some compensation. If we are applying some accountability to the trader’s for purchasing at high prices, we shouldn’t only compensate those same traders who later sold at low prices (realized losses). Instead, we should find a way to compensate those traders who bought high but then were smart enough to hold once they were informed that a mistake occurred (unrealized losses).
2 Likes
I like that the Agave team has taken steps to compensate for the losses some incurred , me being one of the traders buying at 300/ token then getting liquidity pulled and re-adjusted suffering a 10x loss pretty much instantly since there was no way to sell. This completely turned me off from even attempting to trade after that seeing that the money allocated for the trade was eaten up in less then 10 seconds when the right ratio was put in place. I’m very sad this happened as i know for a fact the team behind Agave is solid but realized losses or unrealized losses doesn’t change the fact that money got eaten up not given the ability to even trade after the fact. I hope the agave teams pulls through and does compensate in some form of way, and hope we all learned a solid lesson for the next token launch.
6 Likes
Es de humanos errar … pero es de hombres aceptar su error y enfrentarlos!!
sigue asi mas que excelente trabajo!! 
1 Like
Genuine transparency like this is key to the success of this community, so thank you very much for being so up front. I’m sure the situation will be rectified in a way that everyone is happy, so don’t beat yourself up too much @GreenHornet, without you this wouldn’t have happened in the first place! We appreciate you.
Mistakes happen, you’re only human. It was important that this happened now and the damage done was relatively minor, so that we can adapt and avoid similar mistakes in the future that may lead to worse outcomes.
Perhaps before executing any manual commands that pertain to the DAO, there could be a “time out” so to speak, wherein there is a community call on the Discord and the community can all verify the task to be completed before it is carried out to ensure the correct values are input, the correct buttons are clicked, etc.
We can call it a “time out” before any proposal is executed.
3 Likes