Can someone please explain to me the rationale for not being able to sell wZNN for the first month?
It could be ideal to release a bridge article around the same time as chainsafe tweets about it and the bridge goes live.
Or is it better to wait until we can sell wZNN before promoting the bridge? Part of me thinks, no matter how well you explain it, a number of people will think “honeypot” and damage to our rep is more harm than good.
I’ve already drafted an article about the bridge, the audit, the liquidity program and benefits to the ecosystem. I’ll share it on forum after it gets some more feedback. But the question is when to release it.
I’ve read the answers and I still don’t understand the rationale. Please explain again.
3) is it to prevent a massive dump as soon as it’s live, because some big sellers are waiting for a dex?
4) is it to allow time to test the orchestrators and contract mechanisms w no exploits on the eth side, so its a soft launch?
5) something about allowing a month for people to keep adding liquidity, so we have the depth to hopefully absorb a big dump if we have 100k wznn added, in which case why is there a cap to the liquidity? why not leave it uncapped for the period where u can’t sell?
I’m also not clear on what’s going on. Your logic sounds reasonable but at the end it was not implemented: during the first 100k selling was possible after all and not disabled, and likely there were indeed sales by LPs to be able to get some ETH to pair with their ZNN. Fortunately this didn’t have a severe impact on price as we were concerned - it is about 25% lower than it was before stex shut down, while the entire market is down just about as much during that period.
Now that the liquidity is pretty thick, and early LPs already got the ETH they needed, why is ZNN selling not allowed? I don’t care much personally, just curious to understand if there is still some rationale at all or this is just arbitrary at this point.
I agree that those information should be communicated well in advance and more clearly. I think I’m not the only one who misunderstood and it’s important because you build your strategy with those information. Having no sells and liquidity capped at 100k ZNN is a whole different world than having sells until a cap of 170k is reached.
You could’ve communicated all of this to the community, few messages on tg or tweets explaining what’s happening and why you took certain decisions ( I’m not even arguing here on if you should have asked the community for their opinions on certain decisions you made).
But personally I didn’t like how you had to prevent selling and adding liquidity suddenly on your own without notice.
Moving forward, and seeing as how your team has 5 members (iirc) that plan on sticking around and developing NoM’s ecosystem, perhaps it’d be nice if we saw some communication from some of your other team members? We want to avoid a relapse in having to rely only on one point-of-contact to reach out to a team. This should also have the added benefit of building the community’s trust in your team and its members.
@su_mamu is there anything the community can work towards to lift restrictions instead of waiting at least x days? If we added liquidity more quickly than expected maybe we can hit the criteria to lift restrictions more quickly than expected too… If I missed this I apologize but surely our only criteria cant be an arbitrary number of days
Apologies in advance if this has been shared and I missed it
The question is : who decided that the cap should be 100k? Not 200k nor 300k? If we reached 170K in lp in 2 days, then the decision of having 100k as a limit wasn’t good and they should’ve chosen a bigger limit.
Why? The limit is so that when we get hacked in the first week because we have an apparent bug in the code, we only get drained 100K wZNN, and anyone that risked being early and suffering the exploit is out of luck with a lot less green coin, but an alien scar to tell his grandkids.
It seems reasonable to me.
The logic behind not allowing selling to me doesn’t really add up, though. Sumamu is a big bear who thinks people will want more ETH than ZNN in the short term. I beg to differ.
To do that, they will probably go and sell some ZNN in the pool to get ETH and then use that ETH to add liquidity to the pool.
This is literally the most bearish brain-dead line I’ve ever read. Imagine selling ZNN at $1 and change to provide liquidity. Not only are you selling near the lowest 4-year price but you will be locking liquidity and suffering an impermanent loss on the way up. Double the bearishness. Providing liquidity is already a -ev move if not for the insane rewards.
I added liquidity (not for profit or because I think it’s +ev, it’s mostly to help the network). I did not sell ZNN. That would be dumb af.
The issue here is that this is all speculation and whoever is right or wrong should not matter. Let the market move.
I wouldn’t call that “liquidity implosion”. That was an extremely thin market where some ape decided to click the green button pushing ZNN price to $3k and then another ape clicking the red button sending ZNN to $0.30, these were not real prices, just human-ape errors. We traded with decent liquidity for a few days with no restrictions and ZNN price was holding at around the STEX price quite easily, with large sell orders, and large buy orders into the already deep liquidity.
There is no reason to believe it wouldn’t continue trading at the same price point.