Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Jan 8th, 2021
52
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Zir dorman12/23/2020
  2. Tbh not really a fan of the staking ICAP for more ICAP.
  3. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  4. interesting, how come?
  5. Zir dorman12/23/2020
  6. For one all the other staked tokens generate fees that go into ICAP. ICAP doesnt.
  7. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  8. hmm, feels like a hollow argument to me
  9. true, staking ICAP would not generate extra cash flow
  10. but does the act of staking generate it for the other tokens as well?
  11. no, it's their existence and usage beyond the staking function (fees)
  12. however, staking ICAP would decrease the sell pressure of ICAP, and thus increase price
  13. additionally, it would make ICAP similar to other cashflow-redirecting farm tokens (compounding), which is something that investors expect from these projects
  14. it wouldn't be as great an improvement as releasing a completely new Invictus fund, rather that I argue that implementing ICAP staking would give benefits, while having little to no drawbacks
  15. ie. exactly such an improvement that we ought to explore implementing
  16. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  17. Free to leave suggestions on the board, we would probably not allow plain staking of ICAP - maybe the LP tokens if you provide liquidity on Uniswap.
  18. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  19. we can discuss the suggestions here rigoriously, I think
  20. my main concern in not having ICAP staking is that without such a functionality the most optimal behaviour might well be to sell ICAP tokens rapidly and purchase more of the original fund back
  21. enabling native ICAP staking could be parametrized realatively easily to outperform such rapid ICAP selling behaviour
  22. the LP token pooling might be a better way to implement it than pure ICAP staking, could use some theoretizing
  23. Uniswap v2 pools require assets in 50/50 ratio, so the sell pressure of ICAP would still exist, but halved
  24. bokou12/23/2020
  25. LP tokens is a good idea, but I guess there are some people afraid of impermanent loss and won't add liquidity because of this, maybe a higher rate for LP tokens and a lower one for plain ICAP..
  26. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  27. I think that enabling ICAP/ETH LP token staking is not optimal
  28. other, perhaps better alternatives:
  29. 1) pure ICAP staking
  30. 2) ICAP/stablecoin LP staking (TUSD or USDC?)
  31. 3) Balancer pool (not a fan of this due to lower liquidity)
  32. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  33. @bokou Yeah, there is a risk, that's why we are rewarding the 'market makers' with something that should be good enough compensation for the risk
  34. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  35. and maybe
  36. 4) ICAP/C20, ICAP/C10 etc. LP token staking
  37. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  38. we won't allow plain ICAP staking, doesn't make sense
  39. bokou12/23/2020
  40. @Daniel_Schwartzkopff makes sense, it will be more rewards for risk takers then :smile:
  41. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  42. LP tokens - ETH/ICAP, Stablecoins/ICAP etc. yes
  43. @bokou it's the same for anything in life, really - no reward without risk, that's how you spot a ponzi :slight_smile:
  44. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  45. I fail to see the viewpoint where ICAP staking makes no sense, from my beliefs and experiences it does, thus discussion is good!
  46. perhaps via discussion the staking of LP tokens can be identified as a more beneficial improvement
  47. perhaps I'm comparing ICAP to defi farm tokens like SUSHI or FARM, and others are seeing it as something different, and this causes the differences in opinion
  48. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  49. Farm tokens are by and large just ponzis
  50. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  51. hmm
  52. what makes ICAP different then :thinking:
  53. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  54. Er, look at where the intrinsic value of ICAP comes from
  55. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  56. yeah I get the cashflow to value
  57. FARM does this as well
  58. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  59. Most of those food coins don't have any revenues
  60. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  61. hmm
  62. perhaps I've misunderstood the revenue flow then
  63. I've somehow thought that the fees collected from DEXes like uniswap, curve and sushiswap, redirected into token buybacks are the same as invictus fees being funneled to ICAP buyback
  64. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  65. Sushiswap yes
  66. Farm does a small % of fees
  67. They are exceptions
  68. Circulating supply at launch: 0 FARM
  69. 70% Liquidity providers
  70. 10% Treasury
  71. 20% Team
  72. There will be none of that here, so - much better!
  73. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  74. that is a good point
  75. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  76. No one to dump on the market because no one will have any tokens to dump, and it's going to be distributed amongst a huge pool of people
  77. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  78. so the cash flow is more efficiently funneled back to the investors in ICAP than in FARM or SUSHI
  79. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  80. The problem with those is that as long as you have people that got tokens for $0, when everyone else has to do something; i.e. stake etc., the effective price floor of the coin is $0
  81. There are people that can exit profitably until it literally hits zero
  82. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  83. There are people that can exit profitably until it literally hits zero
  84. this is perhaps where there's a mindset difference
  85. I perceive ICAP as being received somehow "free" as well, thus the idea that selling it at any price is profitable
  86. I fear that if there's no other use for ICAP than selling, people will sell them at once when they receive them
  87. I'd like for there to be some other use for the token, that would compete against just selling them off asap
  88. governance is good
  89. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  90. It's worth at least as much as the penalty fee already
  91. Since you can't get out for less than that
  92. Plus the value of the liquidity pool & future revenues
  93. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  94. that is a good point, I hadn't considered the value tat the penalty fee brings
  95. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  96. So say we have $5m staked and everyone staked for 1 year, the penalty fees for everyone to exit today would mean ICAP would net like $100k for those that remain
  97. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  98. nice, this is significant
  99. I'm starting to believe that LP:ing ICAP is enough to prevent selloff outweighing the cashflow
  100. I had underestimated the cashflow, having perceived the 10% to be small
  101. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  102. To vote you'll need to stake, same as Truefi / Yfi etc.
  103. not the same as staking to earn though, just for the vote
  104. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  105. what was the initial LP that Invictus will provide the seed to, and how much was it?
  106. Daniel_Schwartzkopff12/23/2020
  107. It'll be worth about $50k total, we'll share that when the claiming starts
  108. Zir Agape12/23/2020
  109. this discussion has caused me to think more positively of the Balancer pool suggestion
  110. having to stake 50/50 to ICAP and something else in uniswap might be worse than something else in Balancer
  111. but that's a solvable optimization problem, which the community can discuss
  112. I'll stop advocating the ICAP self-staking for now and look into the Balancer suggestion instead...
  113. thanks for the answers and keeping in touch with the community!
RAW Paste Data