I asked the same question in Telegram this morning. According to the previous analysis, the stream of fees ($1000) is too low at the moment in comparison to the $IDLE funds (almost 2 million tokens) held by the governance. So a cryptos 90% / IDLE 10% pair would have much lower liquidity than a pair IDLE 90% / cryptos 10%.
And have liquidity is the scope of this proposal.
I think that the tradeoff in Balancer pool can be changed even in a second moment
The smart treasury needs to be weighted towards the protocol token, that way we increase the liquidity of $IDLE on the open market, and can use the smart treasury as an actual treasury. The long term vision that I see for this is that we can fund further improvement campaigns from funds within the treasury by removing liquidity.
Also for the reasons mentioned by Davide.
Agree with what has been said, should probably be skewed towards protocols tokens given the relatively low fees accrued by the protocol for now
I think pools dealing with an ETH share superior to the IDLE share would not pick up enough interest, particularly in those times favoring ETH.
I am looking more likely to a 80/20 IDLE/ETH (or WETH) pool but we could propose several pools and not one only:
For example both ETH (WETH) ones (80/20 and 90/10).
Reading a bit more on this subject there also appears to be a discussion for a smart treasury for pickle finance here. A suggestion which I read there was to select an $IDLE balance to deposit to the treasury and perform a market SELL of 10% of that if we are to go with a 90/10 IDLE/ETH pool. This would be a one-off market sell to bootstrap the pool creation. From then onwards, future governance decisions can add or withdraw liquidity from the treasury as needed.
This approach makes the most sense to me, since it doesn’t rely on the community to provide a valuation, which is a hard decision to make fairly since the token is so young.
I’m in favor of the proposal! However I wouldn’t perform a one-off market sell (which could cause a sudden price shock) and rather gradually go from 99/1 to 90/10 (which should be akin to a gradual market buy?).
Another idea: I think it would be amazing to see IdleUSDC etc. as important components of e.g. balancer portfolios/pools, when someone wants to add a yield bearing stablecoin. Would it be feasible to use IdleUSDC for the treasury pool? Probably it’s quite gas intensive… But then you’d also have some initial liquidity in those and show a signal to the market that we are dogfooding our own products.
I would like to propose that we eliminate the grant funding component from the smart treasury.
I believe as an improvement proposal, we should first cause the treasury to be focused on developing itself according to the plan originally written by Joel Monegro.
I believe creating a grant funding organization and funding it from the treasury should be left to a future improvement proposal.
I think clubbing together these two ideas is premature. The goal of a treasury is to support the token price. I also think that IDLE isn’t the same as many much more ecosystem driven platforms.
I think once the treasury is ragingly successful we should give out grants as more users of the platform and more applications are beneficial. But I believe these proposals should stand on their own merits and that we should not have a grant funding body stuck to the side of a treasury proposal.
thanks
Miko
I’ve created a snapshot vote regarding the initial trading fee. Please show your support.
Also, the discussion has now moved here Provide quotes/budget for Smart Treasury development