Incentivized pair listing change for SecretSwap

SecretSwap is currently supporting incentivized pairs with low liquidity that often operate through the expensive Ethereum bridge. This clogs up our UX, and gives users false hope that they can bridge over their ERC-20 tokens and swap. I propose removing the SEFI-incentives for the following pairs:

  1. sSCRT – sDAI

  2. sSCRT – sOCEAN

  3. sSCRT – sYFI

  4. sSCRT – sDOT

  5. sSCRT – sMANA

  6. sSCRT – sRSR

  7. sSCRT – sUNI

  8. sSCRT – sLINK

Removing these would also allow room for incentives for new pairs in the Cosmos Ecosystem after SuperNova. New pairs that I would like added in replacement include:

  1. sATOM - SEFI

  2. sLUNA - SEFI

  3. sOSMO - SEFI

  4. sDVPN – SEFI

The reason I suggest using SEFI as the base pair as opposed to SCRT is to build utility for the SEFI token, and ideally incentivize liquidity provision over the very commonly used staking pool. SEFI staking is currently down to an equivalent APR as SCRT staking, and the SCRT based pairs will likely be available on Osmosis and/or GravityDEX as well.

I’d love more feedback on this topic before I post it as a governance proposal.

edited to remove scrt-rune from the list pairs to cut

8 Likes

I support this. Remove the excess if they’re not being used.

4 Likes

Yes, I agree with this.

4 Likes

I agree with all removals, except the sSCRT/sRUNE pair. It has decent liquidity and some project alignment. (sLINK also has decent liquidity, but nothing else for us that I’m aware of)

4 Likes

totally fair and excellent feedback. I tend to lean with you and think that we should keep RUNE, as they’re part of the Cosmos Ecosystem and have a similar ethos. Link is a weird case since we have decent liquidity… but don’t collaborate with them at all at this time, but rather with Band. In my opinion nobody comes to SecretSwap for the purposes of swapping out their Link.

2 Likes

I would like to see SEFI <-> USDT(BSC) added to the incentivized pairs list. It’s extremely common for users to bridge in USDT(BSC) and have to immediately bridge back out to due low liquidity.

7 Likes

excellent feedback. In general I don’t currently support adding a ton of more stable coins that aren’t sUST or SILK, as I’d like those to eventually take over. Also as Duplex eventually gets integrated into liquidity, that will enable much more substantial and easy cross-chain stables.

To better dissuade bridges that aren’t useful, we’re planning on instituting a liquidity threshold so that our UX won’t be cluttered by any illiquid asset that technically exists on the bridge. People would first see more relevant assets, and then click a link with a small warning of low liquidity to see and use the rest.

4 Likes

I think it’s better to concentrate liquidity and use routing. In this case it would be something like USDC/USDT or another stable. HOWEVER, I don’t support adding more stable/stable pairs until a non-xy curve is implemented.

6 Likes

I will again reiterate that the SEFI pairing is short-term thinking.

I have already pulled all my liquidity and sold all my SEFI because of the short-term thinking of the executive committee as demonstrated in recent proposals, and again in this one.

My faith in SecretSwap as a long-term trading platform on Secret Network diminishes by the proposal. Please start thinking about SecretSwap on a 1-3 year timeline, not what your bags will be worth next month.

3 Likes

I think both of us spoke about this quite a long-time ago. It would probably be worth reiterating why you think SEFI pairings are not good.

1 Like

I appreciate the feedback regarding the SEFI pairs. I don’t appreciate being put down due to having a disagreement.

I don’t mean to be dismissive of your opinions, but you asked us in our meeting to delay or put impermanent loss warnings on SecretSwap before opening because of potential impermanent loss, because you feared (unjustly in my opinion and it surely didn’t pan out) that impermanent loss could be as high as 0.77%… on a day when the rewards were 4x and people were expected to earn over 1% in daily rewards… You’ve previously stated that you haven’t invested in SEFI, and unless something changed, which by the sound of your comment isn’t the case, the only SEFI you’ve sold is what you earned from Liquidity Providing. Realistically there hasn’t been much else you COULD do with it… which is something we’re actively trying to change.

We’ve had the argument over base pairings before. Without utility and demand, all you can do with sefi is sell it. Low price equals low APR’s. Low APR’s means lack of liquidity incentives. Long-term liquidity is necessary for success. Clearly we don’t see things eye to eye, but my response to your dig about us just being worried about our short-term bags is that it seems to me that you simply want to extract value from sefi while you can do so for free.

I would be happy to engage in further discussions on the base for SecretSwap pairings with you, or anybody else, if done in a professional manner.

5 Likes

Adding to this:

There is currently a SCRT Governance Proposal for the community pool to contribute to Incentivized Liquidity on Osmosis for SCRT pairings. We do not have this same proposal for SecretSwap funding. The APR’s will likely be higher, and liquidity higher on Osmosis for the SCRT based pairings. This furthers the narrative I’ve pushed that it makes more sense to have sefi based pairings here. This was discussed in our SecretSwap Committee Meeting today (Nov 3) and I’m enumerating the point here to better communicate the logic behind our decisions to members who don’t attend our meetings.

4 Likes

This proposal is now live on SecretSwap Governance. Tallying will take place on November 10th.

1 Like

We should have only one incentivized stablecoin pair for each of the 2 main networks (ETH & BSC) .
Furthermore I think those 2 pairs should be:

  1. sSCRT \ sUSDT (because we already have it)
  2. sSCRT(or SEFI) \ sBUSD(BSC)

and get rid of:

  1. SEFI\USDC
  2. USDC\USDC(BSC)
    Since Binance added a SCRT\BUSD it just makes sense to add the same coin on SecretSwap.

what do you guys think?

1 Like

I would rather see a push (liquidity event?) to incentivize certain sUST pairs over sUSDC or sBUSD(BSC).

1 Like

I agree with this, sUST and the upcoming sSILK, promoting decentralisation + we could also then get additional incentives from them.

2 Likes

@Ewais001 I provided feedback on removal (which I absolutely support), but not on the additions.

I’m not sure how I think about them. Is there a list of what current weightings are somewhere? What are proposed weightings for these new pairs?

1 Like

I agree with the removal, I would be cautious on the addition right now - I feel this should be a coordinated effort with incentivizing liquidity on Osmosis (re the other thread on this forum by shuztle).
SEFI pairing incentives seems more natural on our DEX as SSCRT liquidity will come through routing contract + huge liquidity on SSCRT / SEFI, but the idea in the end should be to attract the most volume / liquidity and we may need a good think on how we can make swapping to SEFI instead of SCRT for instance an attractive enough proposition to OSMOSIS ppl.

2 Likes

Where can I buy SEFI it is not on Binance US

Which brings up the main reason the additional pairings should not be added. I doubt that most SS users know the liquidity added by SEFI pairings even exists. The Secret Swap router has never worked for SEFI pairings. Attempt to trade anything other than SCRT or SEFI to XMR or USDC and you will get double or triple digit slippage every time. Go try to trade 1 ETH for USDC. 148% slippage right now. The router has never worked with SEFI pairs. Trade ETH>SCRT then SCRT>USDC and slippage is a fraction of a percent. SEFI routing has been broken since the day it went live, and I doubt most people think to try manually routing pairs.

Remove the low liquidity SCRT pairs, but no new SEFI pairs should be added until the SS router is fixed.

8 Likes