There have been requests to start additional liquidity pools to enhance our ecosystem’s liquidity. Additionally, we have a new opportunity to leverage the launch of the Supernova EVM and drive traffic to it. Building on @sumamu’s previous discussion and considering our previous Orbital campaign has ended, I’d like to reopen the discussion on the various options available, including the possibility of starting a new Orbital Campaign specifically designed to promote Supernova.
Furthermore, we should consider incentivizing the ZNN/QSR pool on Ethereum. This could make it easier for individuals interested in spawning infrastructure to buy and sell through Uniswap, potentially lowering barriers to entry for new network participants and fostering greater decentralization. Another benefit of incentivizing the ZNN/QSR pool is the ability to get relisted on CG/CMC and visibility on Dexscreener, as tokens that don’t have any transactions in the past 24 hours won’t be visible and may not appear in search results.
Proposed Options
Incentivize: wZNN/wQSR (ERC-20) Liquidity pool
Add: xETH/xZNN or xUSDT/xZNN (Supernova) Liquidity pool
Funding Considerations
We have several options for funding these new LPs:
Use Orbital reserves
Current reserves: 254k ZNN / 596k QSR - Zenon Tools
Pros: Doesn’t affect current LP rewards
Cons: Depletes our reserves
Split current Orbital emissions
Pros: Sustainable long-term solution
Cons: May reduce rewards for existing ERC-20 ETH/ZNN LP providers
Which LP should we add?
Incentivize wQSR/wZNN
Add xETH/xZNN
Add xUSDT/xZNN
All above
0voters
How should it be funded?
Use Orbital reserves
Split current Orbital emissions
Both (suggestions on how to implement are welcome)
Agree with Shazz, I think we should both split orbital emissions with however many more pools we want, plus add the multiplier bonus to kick off the initial liquidity campaign. It’s not like we have enough liquidity to spread out over multiple chains/LPs. I wouldn’t go with more than 3 incentivized pools.
Eventually, we’ll probably split orbital emissions throughout LPs on all major EVM chains we support, but we’re not there yet.
I’m not sure liquidity for xZNN is important for the time being. While I do hope we see growing activity on Supernova, I doubt it would be in the form of people bridging there usdt or ETH to buy xznn with it. And since our liquidity depth was always a challenge, I think we should focus it on a single network for the time being. If it’s Ethereum then let’s just do it there, so just incentivize wQSR/wznn for now.
We can always revisit this decision if/when needed.
I’m with Shai on this one. Better to deepen the existing liquidity of the wQSR/wZNN pair rather than create a new one.
A larger problem new/existing network participants face is the inability to acquire $QSR and set up infrastructure.
I’d just split orbital emissions between the two Pools- though maybe incentivize initial wZNN/wQSR LP’ers with a fraction of orbital reserves to get the ball rolling.
The reason why I think starting a pool on xZNN would be beneficial is because we have https://alienswap.fun/ and Bagswap in the making. If we want to push our DEX’s it would come in handy to have at least one pool on Supernova for people to trade on / enter the ecosystem from there.
It also helps with onboarding new folks and potentially converting back to native ZNN.
But I 100% agree with incentivizing the wQSR/wZNN pool.
I think alienswap and bagswap would mostly be used to swap between xznn and zts tokens. I don’t see many bridging eth or usdt to supernova, at least not right away.
Yeah, good point about Supernova. We can expect most pairs on bagswap/alienswap to be token/xZNN.
However, there’s a case to be made to incentivize ETH/wQSR instead of wZNN/wQSR. The higher perceived impermanent loss of the ETH/wQSR might detract LPers, therefore a higher incentive is needed, imo.
But maybe we could do all 3: ETH/wZNN (40%), ETH/wQSR (40%), wZNN/wQSR (20%) ?
Yes that’s a good point, if there are dApps built on Supernova I’d assume they’d launch their own token against xZNN. In that case it might be better to hold off with the xETH/xZNN pool and waste resources.
But maybe we could do all 3: ETH/wZNN (40%), ETH/wQSR (40%), wZNN/wQSR (20%) ?
Dividing it over these three pools is also a nice option. However, how would we agree on the emission split between the pools? I’m worried that current LP stakers in the ETH/wZNN pool will be held hostage if we decide to fracture the Orbital emissions.
I assume most LPers are currently not locked, so our timing (Over 12 months after LP launch) would make that a non-issue for the most part, I think.
Regarding choosing the split probably what we are doing right now, debating to narrow down the best options. After that, who knows, AZ is probably not the right tool.
Most of LPers are locked in for 12 months and will be held hostage. Can you get high ROI without locking in? I assume if you get rewards it’s so small that it’s not worth providing liquidity that’s why I think most of them are locked in.
Splitting can be counter intuitive if we need more liquidity depth when zenon will reach 10$+
QSR can simply be added to Xeggex, wasn’t this in their plan?
I think we should list QSR on Xeggex wait until we reach a higher price, attract more wznn/eth liquidity and see If we can fracture the orbital emission after enough liquidity is provided to sustain a good volume.
Sorry that might have been confusing because I inadvertently replied to you, rather than the thread.
I meant that there are enough rewards allocated to the ETH pool such that the liquidity provider market has found the APY at 70%. So I think we’d want to figure out roughly how deep we want the znn/qsr pool to be, and then set the portion of orbital rewards so that the market would find 10-15% APY.
I believe I’ve seen some comments about splitting the ETH Orbital rewards 50/50, with the znn/qsr pool. That would be too much. But moreover, please see below:
Should we consider using orbital funds to directly fund the pool, rather than incentivizing LP’ers? ZNN and QSR will appreciate in value with a reasonable degree of parity.
We could rebase the ratio to 5:1 or whatever we want, before depositing the ZNN/QSR into the pool, and then let the market do its thing.
This way, the orbital funds are not spent / distributed to LP’ers. The ZNN/QSR could later be withdrawn and put back into Orbital or used for some other purpose.
I think reserving a small portion of the Orbital emissions for LP’ers of the wQSR pool is good, as they could put their QSR to work rather than keeping it idle in their wallet.
Maybe a percentage between 10%-20% would suffice, as IL on the ETH pairs could be a lot higher in the future.
Were locked in. It’s been like ~14 months since the LP+Orbital campaing started. Most of the LPers are unlocked and earning max multiplier rewards and will continue to do so until they unstake.