Insufficient financial information or tokenomics about GLUE has been provided to DAO Stakeholders. I don’t believe a treasury swap of $500k should be accepted without a fair market price achieved via sufficient liquidity in the market for GLUE or by additional financial information and GLUE tokenomics understood by the market.
There’s a few hundred thousand dollars of liquidity in the market right now for $glue, it has been traded for a little over 5 months now.
2 Likes
While GLUE token is available to be traded, I believe Exahash is referring to GLUE token not widely available to be traded at most places.
Additionally, GLUE token currently has significantly lower volume, liquidity, and circulating supply in the market; especially when compared to STG token.
Wonder if you’re able to help clarify these points as well Ogle?
I have spoken to SendokGarpu directly about these and other points at length and will try to summarize the replies below in short:
Q- he asked me if I can include the details more in the proposal, instead of linking here to the discussion
A- unfortunately not. once a proposal has been submitted, it can’t be edited (for good reason). I would’ve included the entire text here to begin with, but couldn’t because the Snapshot system doesn’t allow but 10k characters, and the proposal was much longer. so I “incorporated by reference” the rest of the document, which still makes it binding as normal
Q- there was a question as to whether Glue could easily manipulate the price of the $glue token in order to make the treasury swap portion of the proposal less advantageous for Stargate. there was a similar concern around lack of liquidity of the $glue token
A- the reality is that Glue has a lot of liquidity available and it would take >$1m of buy pressure to move it up by multiples. we just don’t use our treasury to provide LP on other chains than Glue is the thing, though we do let folks buy tokens there if they want to to facilitate arbitrage. we do however provide a lot of liquidity on the Glue hub.
In fact, I did a check randomly to see about buying $50k of $STG on Arbitrum and $50k of $glue on the Glue Hub - the slip on buying $50k of $glue is actually less by about 50% (try it yourself)!
Both of these would be arbed out on other chains, of course, so the wiser thing in either case would be to buy smaller amounts and ease into a larger buy - but I wanted to just show that we do in fact have a decent amount of liquidity for folks to buy into despite what some have thought.
As a quick aside, the data you see on the Hub for the 24h volume does not incorporate trading that has taken place on the Glue network. This will be changed soon, but right now it only shows trading specifically on the Base network for our OFT of $glue because we pull it from CoinGecko which hasn’t incorporated the chain yet.
Q- what is being done to offset risk on the treasury swap?
A- we have incorporated a couple of things to offset that risk. First off, the original proposal was for $500k/$500k swap immediately. this has been changed to $200k then $300k later once the app is completed. Secondly, both teams are required to stake their tokens for 3 years, so this should provide a safety buffer for both teams that might worry about the tokens being dumped on the market. And lastly, the pricing of the token swap won’t be done at a number that is just taking into account one date. we have spoken to the team about how to do this already (Lamps brought it up during our discussions), and will have another method of figuring out price that is fair and reasonable (it may be a backward-looking TWAP or something else).
Hope this helps!
3 Likes
Thanks for the additional information. Yes, it is very helpful.
4 Likes
Appreciate the discussion here, I think that directionally this is a good step for the Stargate community.
While I agree that a significant grant is needed to ensure that this initiative takes off, I would appreciate if there can be clear milestones for grant release, such as:
- $500,000 in STG for Paid User Acquisition: $100,000 to be released when MAU hits 10,000; additional $100,000 to be released when MAU hits 20,000, etc.
There are also important operational considerations too that need to be included too, such as the reference price of STG. Are we using the STG price from today? At time of proposal passing? A 30D or 7D TWAP?
I understand that the minimum period between a proposal and snapshot is a week, but this seems to be a very rushed process, and given the importance of this proposal, I hope that we can have more time to deliberate this as a community.
1 Like
It’s a bit pedantic, but the high slippage here occurred because STG liquidity on Arbitrum is mostly not on Uniswap. Attaching screenshot on cow swap, which shows ~7% slippage instead of ~24% for 50k USDC; of course with deeper liquidity on mainnet.
The point Ogle made still stands of course, not denying that.
In principle, I agree; however, in practice, it wouldn’t be difficult to manipulate the metrics. If Ogle truly has bad intentions behind the partnership, he could achieve his goals regardless of whether these milestones are in place.
These points have been addressed by Ogle. I understand it’s a lengthy discussion, but I’d appreciate it if you could take the time to read through it. 
In principle, I agree; however, in practice, it wouldn’t be difficult to manipulate the metrics. If Ogle truly has bad intentions behind the partnership, he could achieve his goals regardless of whether these milestones are in place.
I’m not too sure whether I follow the logic here – because the milestones can be manipulated, we shouldn’t have these milestones in place?
Should we abandon voting for our representatives since voting can be manipulated via gerrymandering, lobbying, etc.?
These metrics are not easy to manipulate – there are tools out there to help track organic usage, and despite fairly reasonable claims that it can be a vanity metric, TVL is still hard to spoof because it requires real capital.
These points have been addressed by Ogle. I understand it’s a lengthy discussion, but I’d appreciate it if you could take the time to read through it.
I have taken the time to read through the discussion – do you mind pointing out to me where Ogle or any community member has sufficiently discussed how the reference price will be determined? The closest I found was this:
And lastly, the pricing of the token swap won’t be done at a number that is just taking into account one date. we have spoken to the team about how to do this already (Lamps brought it up during our discussions), and will have another method of figuring out price that is fair and reasonable (it may be a backward-looking TWAP or something else).
I wouldn’t count referencing a private discussion, nor “may be a backward-looking TWAP or something else” as addressing my points.
Ultimately I believe that STG is one of the gold standards for DeFi protocols out there, and while it has a sizeable treasury (both in STG and non-STG), it is a fallacy to think about this $2M in percentage terms.
While I’m not expecting the same level at detail, I think looking at the Arbitrum STIP and LTIP programmes in terms of the project proposals will be helpful – measurable milestones, that are aligned with the grantee; and, a space for community members to discuss and iterate proposals.
2 Likes
good morning my love for you to be a good day at the end of the day I was just a little bit of a sudden I don’t know what to do with the
1 Like
very interesting proposal, good job!