Okay, all right, that's like we're just getting started. Thanks for joining us. Hey everybody, speaking here.
Michael and Alpha, I'm gonna introduce speaker invites as well too, please respond to that.
I do, thanks. Yep, I'm here any great. Thank you, Dave. Yeah, no, thanks so much for being here today. I appreciate it. As I mentioned, Alpha, we might have lower attendance since most of support live is running and
And the event right now with Kato. So. No problem. I think if we can share just a little bit about you know. The what what what we're looking at here and kind of the different options.
And this is recorded so we can certainly share with the rest of the community and hopefully get some input. What we really want to hear from is the community and what their goals are with the gravity token that's in.
the Osmosis community pool. And it might be good for me. Do you think it would be good to start off with a little bit about the Graven Osmosis community pool? Because everybody has contacts. What do you think? Yeah, for sure. Yeah, we can do that.
Hello. Yeah, we also have. Okay. Adding, um, SkyNet. Thanks so much for being here as well.
and it's male or alpha, feel free to jump in here too.
But yeah, just to give folks a little bit of a context about what we're talking about is that there is 13,750,000 grab in the Osmosis community pool. So really kind of in gravity community is history.
connecting with osmosis and in good faith the community decided to send over IBC almost 14 million of grab to the osmosis community pool and I think the the idea here and I'm not
not speaking for the community, but if you look at kind of the language and verbiage of the proposal that was voted through, the idea was that, you know, this would support liquidity on us Moses and also give us Moses token holders a real say in
How they're to manage that. So I think it's a really exciting thing and certainly what's neat is now we have interchain accounts coming very soon. So that's also kind of an option here too. Could there be, you know, things like protocol manage liquidity? What would that look like? You know, and this is really kind of
kind of one of the first, you know, neat ways that we are aligning between bridge and and DAX. So there's some UX challenges though too. I think that can be may want to consider as gravity assets are kind of now.
mostly delegated to the frontier interface. So something to kind of noodle on as we talk through this. But maybe someone else can share a little bit about this particular proposal and kind of what we're what you and on here.
Okay, let me introduce myself. Do you hear me well? Just want to confirm. I'm clear. Okay. So hello everyone. My name is Liska. I'm the one that
the signal and proposal for the incentives and basically the idea is to have it in its two proposals, right? The first one is to allocate the grab incentives to certain pools to drive up liquidity on those
pulls on as Moses and the second part is matching incentives. The idea is that having the matching incentives will also help with the UX issue that I mentioned which would bring the pulls to the
different page, right? It would still have the grab prefix, but it will help with visibility and the user experience when onboarding those assets. And the idea of the, I had with the
proposal was first to diversify Bricket assets from that are currently in this Moses and the second one is not only the diversification but having
different assets that are not currently being breached. So as you saw, we're having the proposal includes even usd people that's not created at the moment. So we would need to create that before adding the incentives, but basically
diversification of rigid assets first as we saw with the Nomad hack recently and just just started with BSBSC which even though it's a different thing we don't want to be too reliant on a
specific bridge for for most assets. So that's basically two parts. First, incentives to four pools, which the in the discussion on Commonwealth, it was basically Ethereum.
USDC, USDT, and further incentivize the grab Osmo pool. So that's basically it. As I mentioned, we're going to have it memory members of the Osmo system since we had a conflict event, but I would love to hear your opinions on this.
Feel free anybody to kind of raise their hand or if alpha or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet or scrynet#
on the osmosis, no domain decks and move from the frontier over to the main decks. I'd be interested to hear more of anyone that has dealt us to the proposal. I think the proposal is
a wise move to go toward. And then I'm actually kind of being pulled to a greater discussion of including this and to you know the visibility of grab versus
other DEXs, primarily Axel-Celar, and this proposal, how does it fit into the big picture of moving more people to using and utilizing gravity bridge as opposed to saying Axel-R?
And I think, thanks for that perspective. I think, you know, what could be interesting is sort of filling in that gap as we just sat around USCT and died, as that aren't represented. And it does seem like there is some, you know, need for those. You know, if you look at, you know, canto.
uh, DEX, which has the, you know, the largest, uh, deepest stable liquidity, um, in, um, in the customer's ecosystem, they have USTT. So that that might be a good kind of way to, um, migrate, you know, uh, the multi or diversity of bridge conversations. Uh, Michael, if you want to jump in there,
please do. Yeah I really appreciated what Axelar was sharing. You know whatever behavior we want we have to incentivize and add liquidity to as much as it seems to send those funds are there it seems like the least we can do to add a
decentralized bridge assets on to the decks. Is there a conversation? One of my kind of questions that I have that I've been noodling on is around, you know, how much do we allocate the, you know, does the auspices committee want to allocate all of the assets that are
in the community pool now, is there thoughts kind of around the timing and depth of that? Look, you said, did you want to speak to that? Maybe the thoughts there? Yeah, the discussion was definitely using all of the available graph.
But how long, right? The idea is if we want to incentivize liquidity and make it sticky, we should have be an attractive APR at the start. So that's why I thought of the matching incentives.
What was the discussion about how long at first it was 180 days, some suggested 60. In the end, the consensus was to live it 120, hoping to, if sufficient liquidity is acquired then
help make it stick right with probably further incentives down the road but we would have at least four months to see how it develops but yeah the idea is start high incentives at first see which pulls
We only focused, decided to focus only on four, which the ones I mentioned. But see how it sticks and have a further discussion down the road if we want to do a request more gravity from.
more graph tokens from gravity and some further incentives from osmosis. The thing is about the current canonical status of axler. We didn't want to focus too much on that.
to help at least first drive up liquidity and then even consider questioning if there should be an economical bridge. So at first is this short-term incentives, right?
Then a further discussion to see how we can make the liquidity stay on those polls. I think what you mentioned about the USDT is it's a ballot point. Can't agree to be the top liquidity provider.
provider for stable in less than two months. As long as we have deep liquidity, good incentives, and the bridge in process, it's as seamless as possible that will help.
appreciate that perspective.
Do we, is there a, will, will quick before alpha jumps in here? Is there any major sort of points of contention to the proposal that you've heard that we should discuss? Mainly about the,
It's more of a osmosis center issue about the canonical status of axler. The idea of the canonical bridge at first was to avoid confusion from the user end about which which is which rise
but what we saw with no matter is that people actually thought they had native assets. Since it didn't have the prefix of the bridge it has it, right? So the issues that, right, how do we handle that? We voted first to have
have a canonical bridge, XR1 at that time. But we've seen the risks of having a single point of failure, if you will, regarding the assets on as mostly so. We want to diversify it.
the best way for where for now is this so how do we attract liquidity and make it stick without removing the canonical status of axler that's basically the point like we voted for for a bridge before why are we trying
to diversify now. And basically it's a risk allocation proposal to help lower the reliance of one single bridge. Appreciate that perspective.
And I think the unique opportunity is that there is, you know, grab in the Osmosis community pool to, you know, appreciate you also just suggesting that proposal as well. Alpha, did you want to jump in there? Sorry. First of all, hello, can you hear me?
Yeah, okay, great. Hey everyone. Thanks for being here. So I guess first of all, I like to express and I guess underscore the fact that it's really important to have diversification and not to be to be reliant. So I do want to kind of restate that
which I've many have agreed with already so awesome. We'll just quickly touch on, you know, some of the thread was talking about creating a niche for gravity bridge and fulfilling certain areas that are kind of lacking
And one of the highlighted areas was the new pool, which would be the usdt.graph with us most, which some guys not there at all yet. So this would add a new stable. And I believe Justin as well, he stated how this would be a nice niche.
that gravity could feel and perhaps you can elucidate on that more later. I have really two things that I would like to get clarified and I'm pretty sure the people here have lots of information and can help to educate me and the others is one is protocol
I want to make sure that I've got that term straight and how that's different from other forms of liquidity. So hopefully so we can get to that. And the second question I have has to do with the pros and cons of having like lower swap fees. So I believe that
The average is about 0.2% for swap fees. And I saw that there was some mention of perhaps, and if it for the community by having a 0.15% swap fee, like, so what are the pros and cons of that?
do the liquidity providers, they have less income received. Is it more attractive for people who want to swap in fees? So basically, what are the pros and cons around having lower swap fees? Is that something we should possibly pursue? So yeah, thanks so much. I appreciate it.
Is there an awesome process community member or the piece that you can speak to the pros and cons of be great? Yeah, basically the swap piece are decided on pull creation, right?
I don't know if there's a minimum swap fee to be honest. It would be something worth considering. Right now it ranges between 0.2 and 0.3. So, 0.15
for a 0.1, if it would be highly attractive, I guess. I really need to find out if it's possible to have a lower than 0.2, I haven't seen any. So I don't know. The liquidity providers don't focus on swap
is at all at the exception of the Luna classic pool running right now which has a swap fee of 8% right but besides that the income from swap fees it's it's pretty low for for full liquidity providers right now so I think if if we could make it cheaper
to swap for the user with gravity, Bridget as it would be great. Besides the bridge fee that it's lower, having the swap fee lower could help as well. So I'll look into that to see how we can use it as an
incentive. And also, regarding the multi-hop swaps, for instance, swapping from USDC to USDT, at first there was a, in the proposal process, there was mention of having a stable only pool.
But with a current upgrade that's coming soon at the end of the month that will basically be a stable swap upgrade on as most as the Multi-Hop swap from swap instance for
USDC from USDT will actually have the fees from each pool making it highly attractive to swap between stable. So it will be a further incident that we could maybe attract liquidity that's currently bridged from
gravity to USDT pretty easily. I don't know if that answers part of the question. Yeah, for sure the part about the Swapis that makes sense. So definitely would be more advantageous for the user
And so liquidity pool providers are not really that interested in the swap feeds because it's such a low percentage anyways. So yeah, that definitely clarifies that. And the second part of the question was about protocol on liquidity. How is that different than
any other types of liquidity if you could explain that I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. Yeah, so protocol-owned liquidity becomes more sort of interesting as a concept as interchained accounts, as interchained accounts matureps. So right now, you know,
So, Osmosis owns the funds and the community pool. But with interchained accounts and well the new more advanced governance module that lets you execute more transactions
You could, for example, have LP tokens in the community pool. It's a simple way to think about this. And then within our chain accounts, you could have LP tokens from another chain in your community pool, all executed via governance. So this starts to get interesting as far as what is possible.
possible because the range of what you do with fun community pools all switches from pretty much just holding them or dispersing the native token to the full range of what anybody in the cosmos ecosystem can do, which is a really dizzying amount of D5. I feel a forgive my alliteration.
So I just want to clarify that because it wasn't clear for me either. For instance, the Osmosis community pool could fund with X amount of Osmo and Grave.
the liquidity to, I don't know, half a million for the Grave Osmople, for instance, and reap the benefits of the Swapfist, correct? Yes.
So the LP tokens and the accrued fees and rewards would go back to the Osmosis community and the community pool to be used later in pretty much whatever way the governance sees fifth.
So that sort of begs the question then, is that something that I'm going to do to consider later? Or now, you know, I don't think all of the mechanics are here quite yet, Justin.
Or it now? No, not quite. I mean, so right now it's still theoretically possible if you sent the funds. If you were to send a graph out of the community pool into a multi-sig, multi-sig does things and then puts the funds back in the community pool, just kind of
You know, it's just a lot less flexible and there's a limit to the amount you want to trust and multi-sig with at any one time. And these newer Gov modules combined with Enter Chain accounts will allow for really interesting stuff like on
One chain multi-sig, acting as committees, which are so much more flexible than off chain multi-sig and also significantly less apparent. There's just a lot of interesting stuff for this coming down the pipe, but I do agree that it's a little bit early. I'm just excited.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, you know, me as well. I think just wanted to clarify for the osmosis community who is listening here and will listen in the future, you know, kind of what their decisions that they have to make now are, right? And we've got a great proposal.
here and you know it sounds like you know maybe some of the really kind of neat composable things we can do with protocol on liquidity might be a good decision to think about in the going forward right.
If you ask community with that to tackle this now, it is theoretically possible. Which is the best kind of possible. Yeah, I think for now it's only been used to basically allocate incentives or or follow
specific groups like the OSL and no MM for OVGP for instance but yeah I think it will drive give a lot of options to the community to how we want to drive liquidity on certain assets.
This is small clarification on with respect to this proposal at hand. How much of this is far as the gravity portion of these proposed pools is it coming from our
said in the beginning of the call, this particular proposal is on the osmosis side only and is using that kind of good faith portion of grab that already exists in the osmosis community pool. It is, you know, up to osmosis community to decide
and how they want to utilize that. And what I'm hearing and what sounds great is that there isn't a kind of a night idea around kind of aligning, giving some more diversity, kind of starting that, and also perhaps opening up some new channels of liquidity around the USTC and die.
Acquisa is that is that how you see it as well? Yeah, exactly. Basically, there's some gravity, some gravito, some nipples. So that's why we have to do the governance proposal from the most aside. And the other thing is that the proposal aims to
match those incentives. So the 3.13 million 750,000 gravedocans will be matched with those most incentives as well, which will help us really drive the liquidity higher.
And then I think kind of my remaining question is, is there, you know, is there any, is there going to be opposition? But when we have we identified anybody that's has some concerns around the proposal, sounds like it's mostly well received. Yeah.
Exactly. Most of the community agrees that it will be beneficial to to the diversify from from the from the single bridge we currently have the the way the proposal has
worded right now it's basically to not tackle anything related to the canonical status of axler at the moment and only focus on bringing more liquidity to different bridge assets.
Does anyone else have any kind of questions on the head of Skyline?
I didn't have looked at this last couple of days, but I didn't catch that it's actually the awesome, the osmosis commonwealth. So, you know, that makes the comments below even more important.
As you said, I did not see any big opposition within the Commonwealth, but it will be interesting to move, as we move forward, to kind of, you know, bring this to fruition to see as more eyes gets on it, to see how
But I think it's wise that you say not to try to dislodge axolariate any way for their conical status and focus in on the liquidity.
focusing on the liquidity and getting people more, in one sense, having the .grv is kind of an advertiser if you will, you get more mind share there. So I think once again, I think it's a great proposal. I don't
You know, you guys were talking about or mentioning USDC versus DIES, so we need to, are we sticking with what's in the proposal? Well, actually, it's only three items there. So, yeah, I'm sorry, I'm kind of babbling, but
So let's focus on the liquidity and bringing more eyes to gravity bridge and the fact the coal fact was even back when we were making the decision was you shouldn't go with just one bridge, you know that as I already mentioned that
but emmos, you know, learned a hard way and probably others along the way. But yes, let's move forward with getting more eyes on gravity and diversity and the bridge. Actually, we were out at, we were,
Um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um,#
You know contingencies if you will so and they are Made it clear they are maintaining their gravity bridge bridge in addition to axel are but it just comes back to me that we do need to continue to put
for people recognizing gravity and the importance of these liquidity pools and having additional ingress and egress on your bridge front. So yes, I think it's an excellent proposal to us that.
Appreciate that perspective. I'll find you on a jump in. Yeah, sure. Thanks, Deb. Yeah, I definitely echo was kind of following was kind of as signaling there and wondering if we might
discuss a little bit about the proportions that have been proposed. Currently for wrapped eith graph there's a 14 million which is about 30%. Formula U.S. 4 million yes.
And the USDC, we have 5.5 million, about 40% and the USDT, 3,250,000, about 23% and then grab Osmo 1 million, which is about 7%.
Are those proportions ideal? Again, I remember that we're pretty interested about the niche with the tether and perhaps that might be weighted more heavily than the others. So interested
to hear what everyone's thoughts are around that. That's actually a good point. We could switch from... Well, if should probably remain at 4 million.
And we could probably switch and incentivize USDT higher than USDT to attract all the niche liquidity as you mentioned it. I think it's worth doing it that way, but I want to hear what everyone else thinks.
Yeah, feel free to jump in or raise your hand. We'd love to hear from anybody here on your thoughts on that, especially if you're as most as community member, weighing in. Sky Ned, if nobody jumps up, did you want to share a little bit about your thoughts on that?
Yeah, I think I would if we identified and I missed that conversation that the niche market being USDT.
Then, you know, I had to say, yeah, agree. Let's change the numbers to pursue that to know that that's more of a foothold.
Yeah, I mean, I think I think just in general in business you're thinking, you know, if you have a niche market, I know a lot of times when I'm doing my when I'm moving funds around what little I have, you know, it's usually
USDT that I'm hitting as you know that transfer currency if you will To get stop funds to where I need them. So, you know, I think you know what are numbers we're talking about?
here of a justness to but I would say yeah if that's the identified market primary market to go for then let's adjust the percentage to favor the USDT route.
So the reason what's the what's the next steps on this proposal? Okay, I'm typing them right now where I'm gonna update the commonwealth thread with what when discussed mainly
the change of the application to the favorite USET. And then I just check right now and the pool fee can actually be set to any amount.
So I would like to get more input from that community about if we set it to, I don't know, 1.1%. Especially for the USDT we want since we're going to heavily incentivize it as well.
And it's the only one that's not created yet. So those two points with that with that in mind, I could even fund the creation of the USDT pool. And then we can
I would like to get it, who of the gravity community would like to be part of the multi-sync that will manage the funding of the incentives?
Is there a I think SkyNet you've bought your health care volunteer to be part of that multi-stake as well? Yes, perfect. I'll add that in the in the update post and
We can get some inputs during the weekend and hopefully we can have this on chain Monday or Tuesday depending on how much input we get from the community. That sounds great. I really appreciate the work that the community
community has been doing to promote it. I think it will be a healthy community for all the ecosystem. I'm interested in the community conversation around it. It proposes lots of discussion. Sorry Deborah, you cut off.
You could offline. I was just saying that it's really great to see the community participation for Moscow system. The conversation is happening here and I'm saying you also the visa for you know putting that up and starting.
Yeah, we lost you ever. Well, I think we all understand. Yeah, and what you're strong to say. Thank you everybody for coming out there. And I do, I think I have one question before we wrap up. Do we have any idea about the rules as far as pools?
being converted to stable swap pools operating these stable swap pools. I guess we're doing a Osmo parent, it doesn't matter, but just just just just want to throw that consideration in there. The stable swap upgrade is coming at the end of the month, so hopefully
We'll get more clarity on that. Probably all stable pools will be identified so they receive the bonus of how being the swap phase. Okay, well I mean just as long as there's nothing
that need to happen on the proposal end to do that. And I guess we don't have to worry about that. Yeah, and the proposal itself is basically just a pull creation, the incentives and the matching incentives from the Osmo society.
Well, thank you for inviting me to this phase of that. Glad we could discuss all of this topic. The Queen said, this is a sky now.
If you need to reach out to me or bring anything, just you can DM me on discord, light IV, pound 3125.
Yeah, let me yeah, I see you. I'll DM you in a bit. All right, sounds good.
Okay, I think we're good then. Have a nice day everyone. Yeah, thanks everyone. All right. We should have everyone for your time. Yeah. Bye bye.