So are we saying that this model is a new model for abracadabra in the sense it can be used with other LP platforms? Or is the idea that popsicle is the only place to do this?
The answers to these questions beg the obvious; Is this proposal meant to drive the use of popsicle or to drive revenue for abracadabra?
If the former, the fee split needs to be tilted in sSpell holders direction and come with the benefit of investment incentives (ie. nICE for sSpell holders, as some folks will come for the leverage opportunity and end up using other products on popsicle as well, abacadabra deserves a small cut of these folks imo).
If the latter, then the fee should be higher and the leverageing of LP positions should be run across multiple LP services (not just popsicle) so that abracadabra can maximise the adoption and revenue of this service across the greater defi landscape.
This could be a very useful feature for LP services as it provides greater depth to pools which is benficial in its own right, a 50% fee for the abracadabra to make it happen is a bit steep imo, especially if popsicle is the only place where leveraged LPing with abracadabra will happen. Whatās is stoppping abracadabra from setting up this type of automated position in its own site and taking 100% of any fees generated by rolling this out to current LP partnerships or farms?
also what are the risks to LP stability from a service like this? last thing anyone wants is a pool losing stability from large leverage positions with volatile assets made possible by abacadabra service/product.
That sounds great, and this is something Iād love to support 100% if Abracadabraās users werenāt already paying a large opportunity cost in the form of MIMs being held back to save for Popsicle users. New users and growth is awesome, but not at the expense of existing loyal users. We should get better MIM replenishments before fishing for new users, we already have more MIM demand then MIMs, new users should be a lower priority until that is fixed. I like this proposal just not the timing of it.
Disclaimer: I own sSPELL, wMEMO, nICE (and Iāll have a Spirt NFT when those drop for the Isvikingers)
No revenue siphoning from Abra to glorified auto managed LP solutions on top of a losing dex such as Uniswap V3.
Itās sad, but Popsicle will be dead soon enough. Uni V3 is awful in terms of performance and Curve V2 will eat them.
It might not need to be said, but I would dump every single SPELL and walk away if this proposal passes. The last thing we need to do is punish sSPELL holders by taking away fees and giving them away to a frontend (wtf?)
Ok, spent 30min reading replies that stood out, hereās my 2 cents.
Big Picture:
Less time to ship, and accelerating shipping new products/features is what helps driving monumental value increase for both the ICE and SPELL protocol. It also creates excitement and fomo. How fees exactly are shared +/- 10% is secondary as long its a win-win for both. While we wait for Limone, a quick integration with abra will keep the momentum going.
The time is now. The sooner $MIM flips $USDC, the sooner the SPELL $1 and ICE $1000 narratives will play out. Fuck the banks, fuck the SEC. Popsicle will help create more demand for $MIM. This is good.
My SPELL bags are bigger than my ICE bags, but Iām happy to āsubsidizeā (=> drop the sSPELL APR, or fees / total abra tvl) this growth marketing hack to keep the focus on shipping and also accelerate MIM growth.
There is a cost to scale MIM as @0x7d54 eloquently has pointed out. @Squirrel could this cost be shared, ergo part of the shared fees calculation? Iām not smart enough to figure that out but it makes sense to not only share income 50/50, but also the cost 50/50. So instead of a 50/50 fees sharing, perhaps make it a 50/50 gross margin sharing.
Best way to proceed:
If a 50/50 gross margin sharing is complicated or would slow down shipping, then please go ahead with 50/50 fee sharing as proposed for the next 4-6 months, and then re-discuss with round 2 government proposal.
Strongly against this, hope you donāt mean to take away 50% of ALL revenue from sSPELL holders to benefit nICE bags.
In case you are talking EXCLUSIVELY about the fees generated from leveraged LPs trough Popsicle, itās less of a claim but I still think itās wrong.
I still hold some STRONG doubts about UNI V3 being the superior sllution for LPing.
Iāve read a lot about it and, to the day, there is no evidence of it being better performing than regular V2 pools.
V3 exposes users to unnecessary risks for no reason and no better profits, it also allows for crazy speculative price manipulation for new listings.
For these reasons I donāt intend to invest in Popsicle.
The argument of sorbetto al limone isnāt valid to me since the product isnāt yet out, so itās value add to the MIM ecosystem is currently 0.
Sorbetto fragola was recently hacked and, even though I respect the full reimbursement, this adds up to my skepticism.
Finally, letās not forget SPELL holders are paying and getting daily diluted for incentivizing the growth and adoption of the MIM ecosystem.
Half of Abraās revenue Is a cut so big that might send the protocol underwater with itās SPELL issuance to pay incentives and we didnāt even get a clear report of that data to analyze it with the proposal.
You can surely add a feature on the Popsicleās UI and that could make sense, but I wouldnāt remove it from the Abraās UI since, beside the UI, the service is being generated by Abracadabraās smart contracts and it makes 100% sense for the protocol that generates the service and holds all the risk to keep itās own rewards and itās own product on its UI.
Please keep each protocolās revenue directed to the respective stakers.
Iām pretty certain MIM replenishments are currently being dedicated to launching Degen Boxes on more networks, not on Popsicle. BSC and UST were just launched and Cosmosās ATOM will be targeted soon leading to not only lots of liquidity on every chain but also the possibility of built-in privacy. Only 10% of the existing supply of MIM can be minted a day, but this is going to be a very large number in very short time if we continue to encourage multi-chain adoption. I can see in the very near future as we offer stable liquidity cross-chain that Abra can easily afford to share profits to encourage even faster growth and constant use
Respectfully, several weeks ago Dani tweeted (Iām paraphrasing not quoting) that dry MIM powder was being held back for use in popsicle looping to make a big impact. I havenāt been able to re-find the tweet, but this is what people may be referring to.
IMHO comments against this proposal are miopic.
Everybody here right now thinks that demand for MIM is neverending. It is not.
This fee sharing is to open a revenue source which would not exist if Popsicle Finance did not exist.
It is not a matter whether one ābrotherā protocol should subsidize the other or not (afaik Abracadabra in its first weeks made less revenues than Popsicle). It is a question on whether someone has sufficient vision to make an investment on profitable synergies, thinking about a time horizon which goes beyond 4 weeks.
And you can never make investments without taking risks.
Canāt have your cake and have it too.
And by the way, risks for Abra on this are fairly limited.
if Popsicle does not have success, no revenues will be generated, and hence, no fees āstolenā from Abra; probably just a temporary decrease of MIM offer which will be absorbed in a few weeks;
if Popsicle succeeds, it will increase MIM demand bootstrapping a market and a source of revenues which would otherwise not exist.
This is valid just as long as weāre are SOLELY referring to LP leverage fees, not the whole Abra fees.
The proposal wasnāt 100% clear on that and I found the initial statement to be a little misleading.
Also, even though it is true that Popsicle could bring in some further revenue for Abra I donāt see any sense for taking the product out of Abraās own UI.
It should be available on both UIs and Popsicle should benefit exclusively from the userbase brought to the service by its UI.
Finally 50% doesnāt make any sense.
The cauldrons are Abraās product, the SC, insolvency, dilution and depegging risk belongs to SPELL holders.
In real business it would be idiotic to consider giving up 50% of revenue over your product to a third party reseller.
Max I would consider fair would be 20/30%.
nICE holders are talking like the sole value add here is brought by Popsicle to Abra.
Letās remember that demand and revenue for Abra CPDās are at record high as we speak, MIM liquidity is growing deeper and deeper on every chain because of that and MIM demand for producing yeld is being incentivised with SPELL diluition.
Popsicle is 200% benefitting from Abraās success as a brand but I would be curious to see a revenue and usage comparison.
Like I said, besides the hack, sorbetto fragolaās V3 automated LPing cannot prove itself to be any more organically profitable than regular V2 strategies and this has been very well documented at this point.
It appears EVIDENT to me that the real value add here is from Abra to Popsicle, providing leveraged LPing as new service/product on that platform.
So it should be stated clearly that we refer exclusively to the fees generated by the utilization of Popsicleās UI and exclusively for leveraged LPing positions.
Even then 50/50 is crazy.
I think nobody considered anything beyond LP leverage fees. would not make any sense.
Agreed 50/50 is aggressive. something around 20-30% for ICE is more reasonable. Abra is providing leverage service.
Limiting fees for Popsicle only to fees sourced from Popsicle UI shows zero understanding of how it works and reveals just greed for fees of the next 4 weeks and zero vision on long term synergies.
Even if someone leveraged on Abra UI, position would still be optimized on Popsicle. You can make UI even on a third party site, it doesnāt change.
I strongly do not agree with this proposal. Spell/sspell holders are supposed to be the ones who benefit from ALL mim productivity. There is literally no other reason to hold spell/sspell. We have invested in this platform with the understanding that ALL fees generated by Abra/mim (including providing leverage to popsicle) will go back to sspell holders. There is ZERO reason that popsicle canāt take advantage of Abraās leverage without sucking up any of the revenue as Popsicle gaining leverage through Abra has always been the plan. I am not a whale but I am not a small holder and I would leave the project if this proposal passes. I am actually shocked this is being suggested and question its motivation.
In this proposal, the LP position is NOT being optimized by popsicle. It isnāt a v3 position being actively managed and leveraged, it is a simple v2 position with no management required.
Iām against this proposal only because itās very unclear what it actually entails and seems to be either haphazardly created or haphazardly presented. After multiple clarifying comments from the team, there is no detail about what the actual fee schedule would be. There has been no rationale presented about why a new type of fee structure is needed (why couldnāt popsicle charge their usual fees and abra charge ours?) (hint: because itās not an actively managed LP position so popsicle isnāt adding value)
I also agree with jameskbh that saying no one is using abra for LP positions is wrong and makes me distrust everything in the rest of the proposal. Yes there is only 1.75 million in TVL for a random JOE/USDC pair, but tbh few people are familiar with trader joes at all. We have been very successful in attracting liquidity to LPs in the curve pairs. Abra already has stablecoin pairs, btc pairs, STETH/ETH pairs, and tricrypto totaling about 1B in TVL. Abra already has 30x more TVL than popsicle in LP positions alone
In the long-term, I think leveraging Popsicle liquidity through abra makes sense, but until popsicle is adding value either by actively managing the leveraged position or Limone directing the liquidity to the most profitable chain/dex, I donāt see the point of the collaboration. In that scenario, people would be happy to pay popsicle for their management skills and abra for the leverage. The current proposal would never happen if the team members didnāt overlap. Abra would be paying a liquidity manager for funds that need no management. Funds that Abra could easily attract itself IMO.
I think very soon the combination of these two protocols could dominate DeFi across many chains. Weāre talking about giving people one place to go with just a few buttons do deposit across chains with leverage. I imagine if itās simple, low cost, and with a smooth UI, more users/revenue would be attracted to one farm than weāve ever seen in a protocol before. Add a layer of privacy and it would hit every nerve that I know of. Low slippage, one stop gas fee, leverage, and possibly privacy.
First of all, this is not a new product. Itās a product that already exists on Abracadabra that the proposal suggests would be hosted on the Popsicle UI.
There is another argument going around that Popsicle would drive a lot of users to Abracadabra. All though that may be true, SPELL has over 2x the amount of token holders vs ICE so I think it would be more important to highlight how Popsicle would be benefitting from the inflow of Abracadabra users to Popsicle.
If one of the arguments for sSPELL holders sharing fees is the inflow of new users from Popsicle, considering the size of the projects it actually makes more sense for Popsicle to pay Abracadabra for the new inflow of users and the benefit of offering Abracadabra products. Iām not suggesting this should happen but that is the logical conclusion when you weight who gets the bigger benefit.
The increased capital efficiency and option to leverage LPs from JOE, Pancake, SPIRIT are some of biggest upcoming catalysts for increased Abracadabra TVL, fee revenue and overall growth of the protocol. sSPELL holders have already had a huge opportunity cost while holding back MIM in favour of Popsicle (still waiting to see what that was for).
Until Popsicle offers anything more than a UI to interface with the Abracadabra contracts it makes no sense at all for there to be any fee sharing unless itās framed as a donation to subsidise Popsicle.
