Can you please provide some context/insight into what was agreed during the fee split discussion ?
I have zero issue with the proposal/survey here. I am just conscious the Fee Split Menu stipulates that seed capital is a topic during the fee split discussion and I lack context as to what was agreed at the time. I think this would be good information for the community to have on hand.
If there is a change Index Coop is to provide sed capital, it would be great if that can be communicated to Treasury Working Group and it can be incorporated into the budget/risk profile of our asset portfolio.
Hey @Matthew_Graham - great questions! I’ll attempt to provide the context behind this post.
At present, Titans of Data is planning to provide all of the seed liquidity for DATA.
BD advised us to determine seed liquidity, and overall liquidity strategy, after passing DG2.
We were not involved in the fee split discussions for DATA. We presented our thinking in the Community Call and then received an offer a few days later in the forum. As far as I know, the Methodologist Fee Menu was not used to construct the offer, but I was also not involved in the internal conversations to create it. My understanding is that the 70/30 offer was constructed for purposes of parity with DPI while Index 2.0 Methodologist discussions and workshops are ongoing to reconsider the IC relationship with methodologists.
Titans of Data and BD are working with a partner [redacted until launch] ]to incentivize the DATA/ETH liquidity pool with LM rewards to attract liquidity and reduce price impact for users at launch.
Regardless, I would have preferred to seed the DATA/ETH pool to target 1% price impact for a $10k buy at launch. With current seed liquidity, before planned LM incentives kick-in, we’re sitting at ~4.2% price impact for a $10k buy of DATA from the liquidity pool. I view this as a miss given that providing seed liquidity is orders of magnitude less expensive than LM and that Titans of Data signaled our desire for IC seed liquidity in mid July.