Motivation
It’s been nearly a year since the minting of STRDY, and the token has stayed untransferable ever since. It was somewhat acceptable as the protocol was under development during a bear market and it could be argued that it wouldn’t be the best timing to enable the transferability until the general market sentiment turns positive and the protocol itself has developed strong and innovative features and narratives.
Now that Sturdy V2 is about to launch, and the market condition has significantly improved. There is no better timing than the start of the next bull market and the launch of the upgraded protocol to enable the token transferability, as it gives both the existing and future users a much more tangible and appealing incentive to use the product and participate the governance. In addition, having a token that can be valued by the market lays out the foundation for protocol growth.
Proposal
This proposal shall go live for voting and the voting result shall be concluded all within 3 weeks after V2 launch. STRDY shall be made transferable the moment this proposal passes, provided that it ends up passing, regardless of if there is liquidity pool available at the moment of the transferability activation.
Just remembering, this is the third try to make the token transferable: the first one was invalidated by the team due to do not clarify and do not obey the rules to open a votation. The second was suspicious:
In my opinion, the team is totaly silent in questions about the path to transferability and possible liquidity since a token IS transferable soon or later. It is always the same answer : “governance…”. This create concerns about the real intention of the team to distribuite the tokens/value to the community, or only do marketing with it. I keep myself away from the project due to this aspect.
Without a plan for liquidity, it will be very difficult to move the project forward. If this proposal passed, it would probably make the most sense to delay V2’s launch until such a plan is created. Since without liquidity I’d expect the price to sit at 0, which would hurt momentum + kill the value of incentives we have planned for what should be a very exciting launch.
Potential ideas include Arrakis, LBP, Cider (see Gearbox’s launch), incentives for LPing, etc. I’d lean towards Cider or incentives for LPing.
Thanks @pgpsam , I can see that it is important to plan the liquidity.
I suggest to create a new proposal about “plan for liquidity” to be discussed in parallel with this one, to avoid mix two discussions in a single topic and try to reach both goals in V2 launch. I appreciate anyone who is able to create this proposal.
Wouldn’t it make sense to batch them together? That way users voting on this proposal know what they’re getting, and we don’t wind up in a weird scenario where the transferability proposal fails and the liquidity proposal passes.
1 - The team seed liquidity LPing a small amount of ETH and STRDY, for intance, 1 ETH and 1000 STRDY, setting the inicial price of 0.001 ETH/STRDY.
2 - Whoever LPing some amount of STRDY and equivalent ETH, using the price of the moment, can transfer the same amount of STDRY. As example, if I LPing 0.01 ETH and 10 STRDY then I am able to transfer/sell 10 STRDY.
3 - After 1 week (random time, subject to discussion) the user can withdraw the STRDY and ETH from LP and is able to tranfer the withdrawn amount of STRDY.
I have no idea about technical feasibility of this proposal.
STRDY claims began on March 14th 2023 and liquidity mining started on the 24th but the tvl started going down 1 week after that. (https://defillama.com/protocol/sturdy) Without transferability, STRDY distribution doesn’t bring liquidity. Let the market decide the value of the token.
Agree. It’s very shady. My best guess is that it is for investors; the time for their vesting is ticking, and the longer they can postpone, the better.
I have really lost my confidence in any bonafide intentions after the endless pointing to ‘governance’ by the team. Once governance tries to do something, it gets shot down by the team.
It is very clear that users want a transferable token. It is up to the team to provide liquidity, as all decent projects do. If not, than we make it transferable without liquidity. I’m really done with these shenanigans and I’m not the only one.
How do we know it’s not going to get rigged again? Considering this post, why are we even participating in this sharade? Unless the ‘team’ can explain convincingly what went on here and what’s going on, this is not going anywhere.
First of all, it is NOT unprecedented that a token is issued without liquidity. The most recent and significant example is NEXT from Connext. Most likely people will create pools themselves as it’s been the case for numerous tokens. It’s even not uncommon to see tokens being traded without being issued, e.g. Aevo has listed several synthetics prior to token launches.
Second of all, there have been attempts to solve the liquidity issue, e.g. the proposal from Arrakis, but the team has never brought it up for a vote. All the three ideas you mentioned could’ve been easily brought for voting and implemented in the past 12 months but they weren’t.
It is what it is. The most productive thing to do is to move forward and carry out the plan now, especially that it’s clear now the team does have ideas about liquidity.
Furthermore, incentives for LPing is ok imo, but it has to be locked and vested. Otherwise, we would be just playing the same playbook that was popular 3 years ago and it would be detrimental to the token.
Liquidity imo at this stage of the protocol is secondary to transferability. I’d rather have token transferable without liquidity then having to sort out liquidity first before token can be transferred. Having them in one go is the most efficient.
We have a much easier and convenient solution that was previously proposed by Arrakis. I’d go back to that rather than reinventing the wheel. The team should focus on what they do the best, i.e. building the lending protocol, not managing liquidity.
Linking our back and forth on Discord in case people only read the governance forums: Discord
tl;dr we’re on the same page that liquidity should coincide with transferability, and commit to having a proposal regarding transferability posted within three weeks of V2 launch
tbf, the question by russian_acai on discord is the have the token transferable two weeks after launch. You committed to a giving a proposal in three weeks. The proposal could easily state that transferability and liquidity will come in 2026, leading to more discussion, leading to more delays.
I wish you guys all the best, I’m going to focus my time and energy on other projects. Something to do with being fooled once or twice.
I think it’s pretty clear what I meant: I said that it would be a “proposal for transferability,” meaning that the proposal will result in the token being transferable when passed.
We should try to conciliate with team goals, since they apparently have the power to rig a votation, to try to pass this proposal and also in a beneficial way to the project and token holders. I am for this particular proposal, and I want to contribute to its approval.
Is it possible to make a proposal stating that the the team have 3 weeks to present a proposal for transferability, and if this transferability proposal get not aproved, or is not presented then the token will be transferable as it is? I’d be for, just as i am for make the token transferable without liquidity.
To be clear, proposals can easily pass without approval from contributors/investors given that users hold >95% of voting power.
I laid out my reasoning over Discord for waiting a few weeks to get a proposal for liquidity in place, but if you disagree feel free to proceed with the proposal / redeploy the token contract with the correct distribution (possible to get on-chain, just need to be careful to include unclaimed balances or provide a way for users to swap between old <> new) and make it transferable. There’s nothing I or anyone else can do to stop you.
