Reflection on the Agave launch

#41

I understand your concern, sure traders in the first half hour DID know how much they were getting and how much for but please take into consideration they DID NOT KNOW the liquidity was to be pulled and then paired with WETH with 9x the amount of AGVE tokens completely diluting the AGVE supply and reducing the value of their initial investment by 90%.

I purchased 5 AGVE tokens in the first 5 minutes, I should have 50 AGVE tokens
I was instructed by sandpiper and other devs to cease trading as I did
After the agve/hny pool was ruined and the weth/hny pool created with the extra 9,000 tokens
I now have -90% value to my purchase from the initial pool
I sold my tokens at a huge loss since the agve pools were diluted and confusion had truly set in. The launch was botched and the team promised adequate compensation.

Now I am seeing some very conditional and restrictive method of compensation proposed, I understand that AGVE is worth a lot now. But that doesn’t change the fact that all of the early investors got screwed over in terms of the incorrect amounts of tokens accumulated in the first 30 min before the rug pull and value diluted from weth/agve pool.

Traders DO have a responsibility to check the correct/incorrect values
however…
Devs SHOULD take responsibility for diluting the supply by adding 900% more tokens to the pool

I hope that the team comes to a reasonable means of compensation for those who suffered from the first initial pool, it has hurt my friends, CTC community, and myself by participating in what we thought would be good investment and a great project for 1Hive. I would hate to see the early birds miss out on the worms and get the raw end of the deal so to speak.

1HIVE SUPPORTERS ARE THE BACKBONE OF 1HIVE
please don’t discard us so easily and leave us to suffer in the dirt

Thanks,
Cold Truth Culture NFTs

7 Likes
#42

“wants to give them something as a gesture of good faith and recognition of the botched” seems that despite the words about us traders responsible for our trades(which i fully agree w) this quote does give me hope they will do something … i got 1:3 hny:agve on my trade within the first few min of pool… im interested in what they believe is fair compensation…im not requesting the moon…nor would i expect it… what rate do they believe early supporters of project who WERE there at start deserve…1:100? or is that too high ?1:75 or 1:50 ? what do the big dawgs think ? i havent heard any sort of number ballparked yet…should we get our trades at $15 per agav ?$20,$25? like what kinda numbers do you guys have in mind?

1 Like
#43

Can you explain your math here? How are you calculating how many AGVE tokens you should have?

As far as I can tell the AMM worked as it always has, nobody got incorrect amounts, because the amount that they were trading was clear the entire time. There was never any guarantee that the price would remain at the starting ratio, nor any guarantee that it would not dip.

At the end of the day the communicated amount of AGVE entered the market, and when you were buying you knew what the circulating supply would be and were choosing to buy at the rate that was available at the time. When you bought you were comfortable paying what you paid for that amount of AGVE and that amount of the circulating supply (and eventual total supply).

I completely agree that the way the mistake was handled and the switch to the other pool was extremely problematic, I think it could have been handled without abrupt and drastically disrupting the market once it had started… which is why I think some sort of compensatory airdrop is reasonable, some attempt to remedy the situation is appropriate.

Proposed compensation for something has to be narrow and well specified for people to agree upon and implement it.

I proposed a possible way to calculate and quantify the effective damage caused by the mistake and use that as a basis for compensation, It doesn’t need to be the way this is handled, and ultimately its not up to me, I don’t have anywhere near a decisive stake in the Agave DAO which would need to vote on this… But I also have yet to see any alternatives proposed that clearly articulate a methodology that could be used instead.

2 Likes
#44

who has the control over agave dao ? is it luigy or greenhornet? honestly and an entire snapshot might NOT be neccesary…perhaps compensating thoose who reach and can provide tx details etc…that way we arnt just spewing compensation perhaps making well w a few communities members and those who reach out would be better and CHEAPER method to bring this issue to a close and move forward…if you were part of that initial 15min pool by now you are probably part of this thread how many ppl were actually affected and are coming forward?..perhaps the number is alot smaller than pushing out a widespread snapshot

#45

“Can you explain your math here? How are you calculating how many AGVE tokens you should have?”

It was a rough estimate assuming all 10,000 AGVE had entered the pool rather than 1000, the amount you would have received per HNY or xDAI spent for AGVE would be at it’s correct ratio (10x more AGVE circulating) I’m certainly not suggesting full compensation of those amounts. Just pointing out that the initial pool was at a 1/10th incorrect ratio thus impacting market share of purchases before the weth pool was created.

“As far as I can tell the AMM worked as it always has, nobody got incorrect amounts, because the amount that they were trading was clear the entire time. There was never any guarantee that the price would remain at the starting ratio, nor any guarantee that it would not dip.”

This is true to an extent, I was more so pointing out the devaluation of the initial 1000 AGVE by introducing the other 9000 AGVE to the weth pool separately, If the roadmap and launch details were followed this devaluation would not have taken place as it did.

“At the end of the day the communicated amount of AGVE entered the market, and when you were buying you knew what the circulating supply would be and were choosing to buy at the rate that was available at the time. When you bought you were comfortable paying what you paid for that amount of AGVE and that amount of the circulating supply (and eventual total supply).”

The circulation supply was incorrectly communicated, this is what I am trying to highlight here

“I completely agree that the way the mistake was handled and the switch to the other pool was extremely problematic, I think it could have been handled without abrupt and drastically disrupting the market once it had started… which is why I think some sort of compensatory airdrop is reasonable, some attempt to remedy the situation is appropriate.”

+1 on this, there are numerous reasons as to why this caused some unfavourable market behavior. I consider it was kind of like a knee jerk reaction. The correct measures could have been to slowly introduce the remaining 9,0000 AGVE and asses the situation more clearly before making any rash decisions to buy and pair with WETH all in one big hit. The same rebalancing effect could have been achieved by other means with less of a volatile impact on on the markets and now heavily misused funds.

“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).”

^ I think this is a very appropriate resolution to the current displacement of pools, by doing this in increments.

“Proposed compensation for something has to be narrow and well specified for people to agree upon and implement it.”

You are right about this 100% the methods do need to be narrow and specified for people to agree upon it, I just hope that these methods reflect the greater good of project and community that showed up to support it. Too restricted and it may only benefit a select few, leaving out the majority that were effected. All things to take into consideration.

Thank you for contributing to creating a resolution, I feel not many people think about how to remedy such situations and your educated input through experience is highly valuable. I’d like to hear further discussion from individuals who were involved and present at the launch, as well as those with experience like yourself on how to handle very complex ecosystems. I am not a tokenomics expert, hence why I have someone on my team to handle this, so professional advise is what we need here.

I would like to propose that the wallet address’s included in compensation only go to:
a. Buyers that did not sell before the weth pool was created
b. Buyers that sold at a loss before the weth pool was created due to the mayhem
c. Buyers that purchased before the weth pool, but sold after the weth pool was created

I feel like this would fairly include the investors and community supporters who come early to support and buy agave that were impacted negatively and excludes those who may have gamed the system during this time of uncertainty. Would love to hear others thoughts on the matter?

As for amounts to be compensated, I’ll leave that up to the agave team and experts to decide

1 Like
#46

Thank you guys for the kind words. I’m humbled by how this community has come together.

just a few comments on what was said so far before my proposal as to what to do next

The Agave DAO is not doing any under the table deals, It doesn’t even have the ability to do so. @luigy has accumulated a large number of tokens and he recognises that his share is unhealthy for the project, especially at this early stage. But his tokens are his. he is not obliged to sell to anyone that being said if anyone wants to do an OTC deal with him you need to go to him directly.

there have been several days of price discovery. the current price has stabilized at about $175. the price can go up or down from here like any other token. but this reflects the interest in the project


the tokens were sent to my personal account to open the pool. in hindsight, this should have been done with a multisig or the DAO it’s self. At the time, only the seed members had control. the airdrop tokens were assigned but locked. In the time between minting the tokens and the pool being open the tokens were worthless as we could have just restarted with a new DAO. now the token is live and paired, no one can take actions on behalf of the DAO without a vote.


I think there is confusion about how AMMs work. If the pool was set correctly and you was the very first person to buy, you would have got close to that rate. but every time someone buys, the price goes up. in reality, no one was getting that rate given how many people were buying.

there was always supposed to be AGVE 10,000 supplied. but i do recognise and take responsibility that this was not done correctly.


I have a large stake in the DAO as do the rest of the seeds. Luigi also has a large stake given his big purchases. but there is no Admin. there is no one to look at transactions individually and compensate people on a person by person basis. the solution needs to encompass everyone all at once.


I agree everyone is responsible for making their own trading decisions. But you would have to do some real mental gymnastics to figure out the exact amount of AGVE was actually pooled. the fact that info.honeyswap.org was down meant that there was not really enough information available imo.

proposal

I think this makes the most sense. The only difference I would make is anyone who bought before the liquidity was pulled should be inline for the compensation. Not only those who subsequently sold. The formula would remain the same. the compensation would be the difference between what you bought and what you sold. that way those who didn’t sell any would be inline for the most compensation

numbers-wise, The AGAVE DAO has 55HNY that was pulled from the original liquidity pool, this has to be returned, furthermore, the best thing the community can do for the protocol at this stage is to provide liquidity to the AGAVE/HNY pair on honeyswap. I suggest pairing this with AGVE from the vault and distributing the LP as rewards.

currently, the price of AGVE has stabilised at ~$175 (I’m still blown away by this!). this would mean ~330 AGVE would be paired with 55HNY. I believe most people here are long term supporters of both 1Hive and Agave, so LP tokens are most provides the most benefit to those who need to be compensated, Agave and 1Hive.

5 Likes
#47

This is a very reasonable proposal. What needs to be done to gain consensus on this counter-proposal and to move forward to close this matter out? I’m sure we would all like to shift our focus to the bright future of Agave and put this behind us.

3 Likes
#48

Accepting responsibility and then TRYing to compensate is a sign of your good character and promises a bright future for the community. congratulation!!
" the compensation would be the difference between what you bought and what you sold" is reasonable.

2 Likes
#49

I think we let the conversation develop for a day or so more, and then ill create a linked thread with a formal proposal and create a signaling vote in the Agave DAO

#50

so if you bought high…and didnt sell and agave still below your buy price how would you calculate compensation? noneless my trade was less than 400 dollars… so i dont have a major gripe here… how will you determine which addresses sold and didnt…looking forward to closing this discussion and moving forward…

3 Likes
#51

Alright, thank you for the clarification on this. I see this as less than ideal, because it is rewarding a wealthy member who was able to capitalise on a mistake and essentially monopolise the supply.

I understand that he was just making the best of the situation for himself, but I can’t imagine I am alone in being very dissapointed that I wasn’t able to invest early in this project. Instead I checked the price, saw it was close to 1:1 with HNY and abandoned any ideas of buying a decent number of AGVE. Now after finding out the way it all unfolded, I will need to directly buy from the member who benefited from the error.

Again, I am not blaming @luigy but I do hope that we can find a way to allow the community members who tried to buy within the first 24 hours to secure overall better deals in an equitable manner. One potential idea would be to have everyone who bought within the first 24 hours to be able to state the amount of AGVE they intended on buying in the opening sale and what price they expected to pay for this. This would help to formulate a price and volume of tokens that could be released to members who wanted to buy in at a lower rate in a relatively fair manner.

#52

It seems clear to me that the team is working hard to find a solution, but we must all comprehend that it is nearly impossible to make everyone happy since situations are very different, just like when an airdrop is made not everyone receives it. and so not everyone is happy.

Some of us didn’t buy so did not had this kind of problem, but sold at a very cheap price imaging it would all go down to some more “expected prices”. I do not expect any compensation for this personally, a profit is still a profit even if much smaller to today’s prices.

I saw on Discord that there a few hundreds messages on how to solve this, and I’ve read them all. Although nothing is certain yet, I would be happy if the team could share the progresses, even if not finalized, just to keep the whole community on the loop and to show the kind of work that is being done.

I am also supposing that any sort of compensation will really depend on $AGVE’s price, which jumped from 175$ to 283$ at the time of writing this.
That will also be kind of complicated, both in terms of distribution and in terms of treasuries.

I thank the team for taking action for the best of the 1Hive ecosystem, I can only imagine how complicated this all is.

5 Likes
#53

On it’s own, this is solid and i agree (“not everyone is happy” with missed opportunities), but in this context it isn’t quite fitting.
An airdrop has clear rules, You fall under them or not - simple.

In case of the launch the conditions changed over time.

People traded the token before knowing that there was a problem, then traded knowing that there was less supply without knowing that there will be more. And after that the gates where opened and all of a sudden there are ten times more of the token.

Was trying to think of an paralel to make my point clear.
Imagine i reveal to the people i have the last 10 bottles of water on the planet.
Then i show up at the market with just one.
What price would You pay for having the last one?
You outbid everybody else - we make the deal, You get the bottle.
And then i suddenly start selling the rest of the 9 bottles.

I can fully stand behind this :wink:

2 Likes
#54

I completely see your point and true, it is not the same situation as not being included in an airdrop / token distribution. But I think you got my point, as long as the team’s action is prompt, detailed and clear, I’m personally supportive. But not everyone will be satisfied, no matter the outcome (some people sold cheap, some bought high, some never bought, so it is hard to include everyone and have a fair compensation from everyone)

Anyway, the reaction of the community to this is really good, lots of participation and support, it’s amazing

3 Likes
#55

Hi, Thank you guys for the support and the time that you spend on this topic and on this project in general. I would like to highlight few things that are IMO important to consider in your analysis and your decision making process:

  • Time: If the plan is to compensate the losses mainly with HNY (and afraction of AGVE) then, more we wait to pay them back the worse it is for them. Indeed, the price of HNY and AGVE are not increasing at the same rate.

  • What the tokens represents: Agve tokens are not only a speculation tool that they bought to earn more money by selling them after few hours or days. The tokens are supposed to give them vote and governance rights. Those who are interested by the project and believed in the community and wanted to buy few tokens ended up with a fraction of a token. This should absolutly be taken into account rather than only talking about the ones who have bought then sold and left. People who are staying and believing in the project are more important thant opportunists who only wanted to speculate.

Please consider those 2 facts and parameters in the equation because it is not only a matter of a loss in terms of opportunity to earn more money but also what the project represents.

Thank you all, I really appreciate the energy and the involvement of all the team.

I wish you all a nice weekend.

ANSHP

#56

I was in the chat during launch and I didn’t buy when the price was too high for me to buy. I thought about the usual bot war which would be nothing special. People buying this price had in their mind the growth potential and right so, now we are there at 1HNY:2AGVE, that was the first price I saw on honeyswap.
If you all want to show mercy and help people who bought too high I would suggest a solution that taxes the ecosystem and not one dude who did built this thing to make us money. If he made a mistake then there were no proccesses of the system in place to handle this mistake. Obviously it was no fraud. So the system should pay for it.

#57

Can you please explain how waiting is going to make things better? Don’t you think that time is making things worse because AGVE has reached usd597 and keeps increasing!

#58

it is quite easy to understand that it takes a bit of time to figure out a way to cover and provide something for whoever deserves it. They could have done a distribution in 24 h and maybe occur in further mistakes, or cutting off some other people, or over-rewarding others.

It should be pretty obvious to hope that by being a bit more patient a more fair distribution can be organized. I see your point, price is changing but this is due to the market and there are no other reasons. Price could have also collapsed in a similar way.

I personally choose “patience” over “speed”, to try to prevent further complications

#59

I really don’t agree with you on this point. Making a price mistake during the launch is one thing but creating another liquidity pool to sell the tokenns at a lower price is something else. It is called market manipulation and this is a FRAUD. I would really appreciate knowing more about how this decision to create another pool has been taken. Did you guys vote for that?

Again, we all make mistakes but the corrective actions should not be more dramatic than the mistake itself.

The problem is not only about compensating the lost money but also compensating the number of tokens that some of us didn’t get and ended up with fractions while others got a better price in the other liquidity pool.

1 Like
#60

I agree with you “patience” would have been the best thing to do after the first mistake. We could have kept the extra money and let the DAO decide how to share or invest it. But, another decision has been taken that made things worse.

Again, I’m not talking about the price of the tokens but about the number of the tokens to compensate what happened here. We have created an unfair situation. A lot of the token holders do not care about the price of the tokens because they believe in the project and they want to have the same rights as the others no more no less. But we are just proposing to give them a fraction of their rights and this is not fair at all.