Perpetual ecosystem growth

Before getting into details, I would like to know how everyone feels about the following.

Would it bother you if sellers would be paying a fee and that fee would then be used to incentivize affiliate marketers who bring in buyers?
  • YES
  • NO
  • Show results

0 voters

1 Like

Just wanted to clarify the question and answer a little.

You need to vote NO if you are in support of incentivizing affiliate marketers to attract buyers by charging sellers a small TX fee. I assume that fee would go into some marketing pool to be used by marketers to attract buyers.

This seems like a great program that will be self sustaining (i.e. perpetual motion machine) and will benefit the entire network.


Yes, that’s accurate.


Zir, you’re a genius.

1 Like

Another take here : a different marketing strategy is deep liquidity : the seller / buyer could may a fee which could be redirected into a liquidity pair (znn-eth?). We can have the best marketing in the world, at the end of the day attracting capital come from liquidity + apr. Zenon has been suffering from low liq since years and this could help quite a lot to get the interest of those looking to enter the ecosystem easily. What do you think?

Yes, I agree that liquidity is very important. Uniswap pools already redistribute trading fees to liquidity providers. And we already have Orbital program that incentivizes liquidity providers.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, you’re proposing that there should be a trading fee that gets locked in the pool as liquidity that wouldn’t be owned by anyone. That is a great idea, indeed and I will think about its impact.

We still need a mechanism that will inject new value into the ecosystem, which is why I’m looking to incentivize affiliate marketers to go out and bring that value here.


I don’t know what would be the best model but I’m afraid that APR alone - as incentives for LP - would’t be competitive on a low mcap and without a big push from a MM. Usually when a project launch such program there are VC’s pumping to make the whole thing attractive hence why I thought about some fee going to the pool and being owned by nobody. I see several pros to this proposal:

  • we don’t solely rely on big players to push liquidity up as they usually pull away within a week anyway.
  • the liquidity will keep increasing no matter what.

It makes me think about the protocol owned liquidity I saw in defi but I don’t recall how it used to work.

By selling you mean ZNN to wZNN bridging?

Same question. Are we talking about wZNN trading on ETH?


1 Like

Very bold affirmation. Can you explain the inner workings of this mechanism?

1 Like

Orbital Program is basically protocol owned liquidity, we just choose to pay it out as extra APR instead. Locked-in liquidity have indeed helped other projects, as it acts as a guaranteed that there would be some exit liquidity.

I don’t think it should be “owned” by anyone, but owned by the network participants. I think having the same guarantees as what it takes to halt the bridge, to be able to move the liquidity say from ETH to Avalanache, if the community desires to, would work well in terms of both capital efficiency and as a liquidity guarantee, as it would negatively impact the reputation of the network if the liquidity is not thoughfully moved around from chain to chain.

I would also like to point out, that if we can show what percentage of the LPs are locked in for a full year (to take advantage of the APR multiplier) then this might be enough of a guarantee for most people. It would just be a game of increasing the depth of the liquidity, which the marketing fee can be of great help.

It’s not the same thing as a small fee per tx would increase the liquidity over time.

If you use a % of the outstanding Orbital funds to create a LP position, that position will also acrue fees from the Uniswap LP as well as Rewards from orbital, therefore compounding and increasing overtime.

A direct fee will definetely increase the liquidity much faster, especially in times of extreme volume peaks.

How would that work and how do you get ETH from those immense funds without destroying the price ? The interesting pairs are the in / out for ZNN not the QSR/ZNN one

Topic moved to #marketing

So we have the results of the poll and 76% of the respondents would be willing to pay some kind of selling fee in order to incentivize marketers to bring value.

What’s the objective?

It is linked to the bridge and it goes like this (values and assets are just for sake of simplicity):

  • ideally we’d want to reward marketers for bringing value to the ecosystem, which would mean a new user that buys ZNN
  • we can’t do that easily, but we have some control over the bridge and the next best thing we can do it consider users swapping ZNN > wZNN potential sellers and users swapping wZNN > ZNN potential buyers

Where do the funds come from?

  • every time a potential seller swaps from ZNN to wZNN, a fee of 3% remains in the bridge embedded
  • every time a potential buyer swaps wZNN to ZNN, they can use a referral link, which will give the potential buyer a 1% bonus and the referral another 2%
  • this mechanism is 100% sustainable, infinitely scalable and unlimited since there can only be as many wZNN bought as there were sold

What does the marketer need to do?

  • marketers can generate affiliate links and send leads to them or they can fork the bridge web app and hardcode their referral address

Why would buyers use the referral link?

  • most buyers won’t even be aware of this program, since the marketers will reach out to them with a landing page that already contains the referral link.
  • but even the ones that are aware will likely use a referral link because they are incentivized to do so (1% bonus)

How does it work technically?

It’s going to be much easier than setting up any tracking service:

  • the affiliate will provide a link to the bridge web app that contains a referral.
  • that’ll be saved in the user’s session and when a swap from wZNN to ZNN happens, the referral will be included onchain.
  • once it’s onchain, the orchestrator will see it, validate the affiliate’s referral address and distribute the affiliate’s share as ZNN.

So all users must be sent to the bridge web app by the marketers?

If the affiliate wants to use a different landing page and not the bridge web app directly, which will likely be the case, then they just need to include a tiny code (probably an iframe or an image) in that landing page that will set the referral as a cookie for the visitor.

Why wouldn’t the buyers just use their own addresses as referrals and get the whole 3%?

  • buyers who are not aware of the program, won’t even think about this possibility
  • buyers who become aware of the program won’t be able to easily get a referral address
  • if things get out of hand, there are technical solutions to prevent it and we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it

What’s next?

I’ll make a poll so we can decide on the fee.

Will it launch with the bridge?

No, because it’s still WIP. But we need to set the fees right from the start.


! Read the discussions before voting

Fee percentage for swapping ZNN > wZNN. The bigger the fees the more incentivize for marketers.
  • 2%
  • 3%
  • 5%
  • 8%
  • 10%

0 voters

1 Like

Thanks for the clarification! I’m amazed how wonderful this mechanism can generate perpetual growth (marketing) for the ecosystem!

1 Like

Imagine some twitter airdrop influencers take up this !