PSP-EPΔ03: Adjustment of Gas Refund Values [GovCo Proposal]

I vote against the proposal: I think a lot of people sign up for and start using Paraswap because the idea of earning up to $2.5k/month in gas fees is very appealing. They switch over from Uniswap or 1Inch or whatever and we have a new user. Now, many of these users don’t actually earn $2,500 but it was the idea of $2,500 that got them in the door and now that they are users they will probably stick around.

A $500 limit is not nearly as appealing to convince someone to switch over and I think there will be a drop in new user volume. Additionally, you risk alienating users who feel this was a “bait and switch” tactic changing the rules just two months after migrating their stake to 2.0.

4 Likes

So, people came for top rates, and GRP because other dapps don’t provide it.

If the vote passes, users would still have top rates and GRP, lesser maybe, but still higher than every other that simply don’t provide it.

It’s still a big advantage to use ParaSwap. Why would they leave ?

And it’s important to remind that this concerns only 53 wallets. 130231 unique wallet used ParaSwap in February.

I stand by my position that the DAO should favour the sustainability of the protocol over special interests.

The success of the protocol will eventually benefit all users and not a minority.

3 Likes

ok, 53 wallets obtained 2500$ (132.500$)
you say that 130.000 wallets use paraswap. what will happen when all of them obtain an average of 10$ for example? this is 1.300.000$ (some will be 0$ and some 500$, just an average)
will you reduce the refund again? I think this proposal has not been analyzed at all. Seems a joke.
In fact seems that the GRP was made without taking into consideration any figures, and is being planned on the go, promising a nice plan, and changing the rules at first epoch. I keep my vote against, and lets found ways to improve the earnings.

3 Likes

The arguments against this future vote do not hold and run counter to the healthy growth of the protocol.

My vote and the others that will come throughout the growth of this protocol will go towards the future success of Paraswap.

Paraswap has a collegial vision for its financial and organisational management.

That is why I will vote for this proposal. To preserve the $PSP, as well as the credibility of our DAO and its budget management.

1 Like

You can have your own opinion, but I think you have to respect the work of the people who have been involved in the creation of the initial proposal, as well as the analysis and proposal work of GovCo.

The fact is, a large amount of $PSP is distributed unevenly to a small number of users.

Bearing in mind that the GRP is an “aside” to the main interest of the protocol, the PSP2.0 real yield, should we continue this distribution as it is or decrease it.

I think that the decrease is necessary for the greater good, we will unfortunately have to agree to disagree on this one.

2 Likes

And when will be the voting? because here are many people in both sides, and many making some proposals to modify the GRP without reducing the limits, but nobody has said if these ideas are good/bad or whatever… Seems a black or white

I realize that seems not sustainable situation, but many (or at least some) things can be done instead of the drastic reduction

Thanks for reading

2 Likes

We see many newcomers disagreeing. But the people who are experienced in DAO are mostly in agreement.

Never make a generalization of your opinion.

I will not promote other projects as this is not the topic, but doing some research I have found more then 1 aggregator that offers weekly refunds. I stayed here because the protocol offered a competitive incentive to stay. I also think that other solutions have not been taken into account.

Please share in dm or on discord, it always good to know the competition.
EDIT: This proposal becomes a casual discussion and I take my share of responsibility for it. Having already given my opinion I leave the place to the other members of the community.

Your argument about a scenario where 132,000 wallets receives $10 each doesn’t fit because @Albist only stated that figure to have an idea of how many monthly average users Paraswap had. Now to get any refund at all, you need to have staked psp in either SePSP1 or SePSP2 and have the minimum Paraboost score.

A more aligned comparison would have been how many wallets currently staked on 2.0 and of that numbers how many qualifies for a refund?

Need additional diagram with staked amount. I am sure that these 3.6% that got > 2k$ refund, staked more than those 93.9%.

So you are not just giving them 2k$, each of those addresses invested more than 10k$ in some altcoin and staked it with 1 month freeze.They were not doing any “social activity”, they payed hard eth to get this score Taking the risk of token price falling and never coming back. + they brought huge volume. + I am sure almost all these addresses are NEW users, with new money. Team should not care much about old users, they are already (don’t know why) are using your dex, you need new users, you need to increase your dex market share.

Talking about suggestion. My suggestion is for Committee to start working on something useful, to think how to profit more, not how to spend less. Make normal marketing, look at 1inch! Look how they used increased volume after they made their gas refund program! Several announcements a week, “made this amount on this chain! that amount on that chain! here is how much burned, here is how much new users, 50% increase in volume from last week!” discord, twitter, infographics, promotion. Ofcourse you do not need new users and new volume, if you are not using it! Paraswap marketing is just silence + some reports that noone reads. With marketing you attract even more new users and new volume and this pushes up token price. And maybe, then people became certain in psp token and in rules of this protocol and stop selling their gas refunds and start holding. And then team takes these good volume/users figures, makes a nice presentation and goes to their potential investor and try to “sell” this volume to them and again price goes up with market capitalization. Prosperity of this protocol does not come from users. It is not like you give a user 100$ refund and user gives you 200$ fee. This will never work. You even do not need to be profitable at this point in time, there are a lot of big great companies that are not profitable, but have huge volume, huge user base and huge capitalization. Project in crypto nowadays do not grow from fees from users, they grow from investors by increasing market cap. At this point you need to get more market share. And yes, of course you will have to pay users more than users will pay you. And you are very luck that people are willing to pay 10k for some altcoin, stake it and bring you volume. You think about saving some pennies, risking losing millions. Better think how to get your token on good exchanges. You have to compare yourself to 1inch. Why their token is on every exchange with huge liquidity. Why their token is in top 100 market cap and psp in top 1100? And they have no DAO Committee, maybe thats the answer. I am new here, but if your previous proposals were like this than your do not give this dex a chance. Token is already traded for 1.5 years, still no tier 1 CEX! Maybe your salary should be given to CEX so they list psp token? And now your are trying to get rid of people who staked 10k$ for each address and brought volume? Is team even knows what are you doing? Maybe they should just copy what 1inch is doing and get rid of any DAO Committee?

Lets face it. With 1inch new Fusion system there is no point in using anything else. Retail users pay 0 gas fees(ZERO gas fees), Resolvers that “resolve” user’s trade pay gas for them, and now even resolvers get their gas refunded, so resolvers execute a trade even if there is not slippage for them. So in paraswap user pays for gas and pays fee. In 1inch user pays 0 in gas and no fee. There is no way users will pay you, more than they get from you. Only very unfortunate users who do not know how to set their slippage right or how not to pay fees.
GRP is just a “commercial”, you are paying for new users. And yes this is the main part of all this Social Escrow. And it is your obligation to use new users and volume to get more users and volume.

GRP with high refund is only way against 1inch Fusion. Think how devastating it will be now to change the rule. It will be like a snowball, price down, PR down, users down, volume down, market share down. All the momentum from PSP 2.0 will be lost. In such period in this market you can not act passive, you do not act aggressive it means slow death. Your competitors have bigger teams, more money, more volume, more influence, more marketing and PR. It’s only a matter of time… Already now you can not increase your dex share without “buying” users and this will just get worst. All momentum from your start 1.5 years ago is obviously gone. You don’t have your gassless Fusion system, so basically GRP is your last chance …Use it wisely)
Good luck.

4 Likes

I been here since Paraswap started and I have seen how the protocol was growing and betting for it.
But I’m against with the opinions that say “People come here for better rates” because it’s simply not true.
Yes, Paraswap have good rates and interesting incentives but there are not so differents than competitors before mentioned (and when the api and UI don’t return an error).
Seems like we all know this but nobody want say it.

I’m in favor to edit/change the GRP because we shouldn’t continue with a non sustinuable program, but we must think about the consecuenced we will get with a so drastically change in middle of the epoch.

I would be grateful, as has been mentioned, if the proposals proposed by the users were valued.

4 Likes

PSP-EPΔ03: Adjustment of Gas Refund Values is now live for voting!
https://snapshot.org/#/paraswap-dao.eth/proposal/0xd8e704f62ca65f18c7457c9797bbc49fb48fd418a451b826fec840131aec64dc

As this proposal has gathered a lot of discussion from a variety of new members (being now the 3rd most discussed point in the forums), I would like to remind users of the following points:

  • Anyone in the DAO is free to provide alternative proposals and suggestions to how to better anything related to the ParaSwap protocol or PSP, as long as the correct governance procedures are met. In addition to posting constructive criticism to existing proposals, if you have your own ideas on how the DAO should act, you can either post a new proposal explaining the roadmap of it or a PS-Research post exploring the possibility.
  • Please main sure to keep discourse civil, constructive and on-topic.

“Against” first got 10mil!
“For” are mostly whales voting. Out of 7.2mil, 6,3mil are whales: 4mil, 1.2mil, 1.1mil.
More addresses are “against”. Democracy is winning!

Following committee logic it should be opposite, a lot of small holders should be “for”. But they are not…We will see.

“Against” also got its hero!
Thank you insiderinfo.eth People are with you!
“Against” is winning by 2x! 16mil vs 8mil
Most addresses are against, most tokens voted are against

That is me.
Voted against, while I’m in favor for reducing, this is too rushed imo…
I would actually vote ‘For’ because all your arguments are very bad and are used in bad faith (personal gain)…

EDIT: I actually just read your garb*** comments, changed my mind, thanks

3 Likes

))
oh noooo, the whale turned evil whale)
You are so easily persuade)
I always thought that personal gain is a good thing)
And still we are crushing you
All the whales are “for” 4.9mil, 4mil,1.2mil,1.1mil…
All the small folks are against(people who committee is trying to save))

Greater good is better than personal good.

Greater good can not be achieved without each person trying to achieve personal good…
And here are just some whales think they know what is best for all others.
It will be real great when selloff will start((
Team+committee+whales… Its like perfect storm. Like government + legislative branch + oligarchs…Everybody “for”.
Only people are against!

And once again free people are wining. Against 15mil, for 14mil.
Out of 72 voted addresses only 25 “for” its 1:3 ratio. Obviously people do not support your decision.