Maybe dumb question but why not $JPEG instead of $JPG?
1 Like
Folks,
I’m hugely bullish on this idea, was not able to join the call today, but can we please see a detailed liquidity model/discussion re how this product does work and scale - and beat it up - before it goes to IIP?
Apologies for not being able to make the call and lacking context on what was discussed there.
Cc @JosephKnecht @overanalyser @mel.eth.
If such content was discussed and shared on the call, I’d love to see it. Ie please share. Thanks so much.
I feel some risk of running at this hard and failing due to liquidity and market structure.
2 Likes
Hi Dev,
Thanks for your bullishness. I share your concern that the lack of liquidity is a major challenge. I discussed some of the workarounds in today’s community call (slides, recording) but they’re not without their own issues.
Does the Coop have any tools or best practices for liquidity analysis? I’m happy to work-up my own but I’d prefer to avoid reinventing the wheel.
Best,
Joseph
2 Likes
No reason. I’m happy with either.
2 Likes
Great deck @JosephKnecht ,
Thank for sharing - and for the fast reply.
Hey, look - if PWG and EWG experts sign off on this - with all their peta brains - I’m cool. There’s a ton of liquidity and execution skills there. And you’ve clearly spent a lot of timing thinking about this and built up huge skills.
I guess a question we might have: we have caps on FLI products now, maybe we’d have one on this too - to manage carefully vs liquidity and market structure/changes to market structure as we grow.
I’m dying for such a product concept.
2 Likes
Maybe OA or another will share some details here… 
This is awesome, @JosephKnecht - appreciate you working with the COOP and for the level of detail you put into this proposal.
Some overall thoughts:
- As a general principle, I am fine with “good enough” to test user demand - if people like the jpeg baskets, we could refine the baskets in future iterations. If we could safely get to $10-15M TVL with the “simple” approach, the management fees from that alone could support the additional resources required to develop a V2 with more active liquidity and inventory management.
- I think it would be good to scope out the resources required for the more “hands-on” approach, but that could be done in parallel to shipping the simple index to market.
- My sense is that users would be willing to pay a higher management fee (e.g. 3-5%) given the complexity of the more active mgmt approach, but this needs to be tested with the market.
Some ideas around the challenges around low vault liquidity & inventory:
- Co-incentivize liquidity with NFTX and NFT20
- Permit a % of the overall index (e.g. ~10%) to be temporarily comprised of synthetic assets → sell the synthetic and acquire the underlying once slippage conditions improve
- (Temporarily) remove an asset from the Index if the underlying vault inventory drops below a certain threshold for some period of time
6 Likes
Thanks for the nice feedback.
- As a general principle, I am fine with “good enough” to test user demand - if people like the jpeg baskets, we could refine the baskets in future iterations. If we could safely get to $10-15M TVL with the “simple” approach, the management fees from that alone could support the additional resources required to develop a V2 with more active liquidity and inventory management.
I fully agree 1000%. I see a lot of value in launching with a simple product and then building it as we go. I see roughly 3 levels of maturity:
Level 1 - “Simple”. Swaps only. $10-15M TVL
Level 2 - Above plus buying/selling NFTs to minimize price impact. $15-$50M TVL
Level 3 - Above plus creating and investing in our own vaults (eg, Fidenza, VeeFriends, Hirst) and then include the vault tokens in our index. This could be done by delegating to a purchasing DAO like PleasrDao, FlamingoDAO, Jenny Metaverse DAO, etc. . >$50M TVL
The one subtlety is that even for Level 1 we’ll probably need to buy NFTs to establish our positions.
- I think it would be good to scope out the resources required for the more “hands-on” approach, but that could be done in parallel to shipping the simple index to market.
This will be done in PRD.
- My sense is that users would be willing to pay a higher management fee (e.g. 3-5%) given the complexity of the more active mgmt approach, but this needs to be tested with the market.
Fully agreed. I think we undervalue ourselves and we could charge a lot more for our products.
- Co-incentivize liquidity with NFTX and NFT20
Yes we’re working closely with NFTX on coordinating LM, and will engage NFT20 and possibly Fractional soon. The main topic is that NFTX plans to stay in un-concentrated liquidity while it may make more sense for us to use automated, concentrated liquidity. We’d then have separate LM programs which is not ideal. Any thoughts here are welcome.
- Permit a % of the overall index (e.g. ~10%) to be temporarily comprised of synthetic assets → sell the synthetic and acquire the underlying once slippage conditions improve
I’m still undecided but I’m inclined not to use synthetic derivatives, e.g., uPunks from YAM synths. The pro is that they’re inventoriless. The cons are that they undermine the message that investors own claims to the underlying NFTs, there’s a hypothetical risk of depegging, and they track statistics other than the floor price. It also costs a lot of price impact for us to build/leave positions so I’d prefer to only build a position if we’re going to stick around.Chainlink is working on a pricing Oracle for the punk floor price with JPEG’d and I expect people will synth off of it.
- (Temporarily) remove an asset from the Index if the underlying vault inventory drops below a certain threshold for some period of time
Yes, this is more of an issue than people tend to realize in particular because it goes into a negative feedback loop as the vault token drops due to the declining inventory.
You could get a run on the vault inventory even if there’s token liquidity. In NFVTI for example, the CyberKongz vault went from 6 items to 1 quickly and I had to switch from the NFTX to the NFT20 vault. If the TVL was bigger it would have been very expensive on the price impact. It’s also prone to manipulation since a whale could short the vault token and then deplete the vault. That’s maybe the strong argument for having some synths.
1 Like
To be clear, I definitely support the NFT index idea. I think it will be a very successful product. But my concerns are about using open ended pools with hardly any liquidity as benchmarks.
4 Likes
Many thanks @Beanie Your feedback was definitely taken in the right spirit and is much appreciated. No worries at all. You’re entirely correct that there’s more liquidity in the Fractional pools. The difficult trade-off we need to balance is the deeper liquidity and inventory in these pools vs the wider coverage in the other pools. I hope that’s sensible.
2 Likes
Hi Everyone, I want to provide a quick update on progress.
As many of your have mentioned, this product is particularly difficult due to liquidity in this market. @JosephKnecht and the team are working on potential solutions so we can be the first to launch a successful NFT Index.
Once we feel confident that we’ve removed all blockers we will move for a DG2 vote.
We always welcome any input and appreciate your patience as we grind to the finish line.
9 Likes
Great concept.
It will be great to chat with you.
I’m interested in potentially contributing.
1 Like
appreciate the update
1 Like
Hi Everyone, anything quick update.
$JPG is waiting to have their PRD reviewed by the EWG team to understand product feasibility.
At the same time, we’re working on fee split agreements. We’re making great progress on getting this to DG2.
8 Likes
Hi Everyone, quick update.
$JPG has been reviewed by EWG. We’re working through some liquidity challenges while the WTA is set for tomorrow.
We’re on track for a DG2 in the near future.
5 Likes
Hi Everyone,
We have worked through many different angles, but have decided to put this product on hold until liquidity in the market is sustainable.
We looked at options to limit supply, but this results in the product trading at a premium until the supply limit is lifted. If this product scales to $100M+ (which we think this product could!) there simply isn’t enough liquidity in the underlying tokens.
We are all eager to launch this product so we’ll be monitoring market conditions and will revisit once acceptable.
I’m sure you all have the question, “How will we know when this product is ready”? Another post will be coming in the near future with estimates on what conditions are necessary to safely launch $JPG. Launching products in low liquidity markets is more an art than a science so we appreciate your patience as we work through these challenges.
4 Likes
Thanks DocH, oneski, mringz, cavalier, oa, jackie, and many others for their hard work and creativity to move JPG forward. As DocH outlined, we look forward to resuming JPG once the liquidity landscape improves. This is not just wishful thinking as there are several major near-term developments that will improve liquidity including uptake of GenieSwap, more NFT purchasing DAOs adding liquidity, and of course the launch of the Coinbase NFT marketplace. I’ve also been working with some Fractional vault holders to add more liquidity. I’m looking forward to working with PWG and EWG to better understand how much liquidity is “enough”. In the meantime we’re here for any questions.
5 Likes
Here’s a brief update on JPG. @overanalyser and @jackiepoo have provided draft general requirements for underlying token liquidity. We’ve updated the JPG Product Requirements Document (PRD) with these new requirements. I’m now awaiting feedback on the updated PRD and whether we can resubmit to EWG.
More generally, I hope the liquidity requirements doc will help other Methodologists design their products, particularly for very low liquidity compositions.
cc: @DocHabanero
6 Likes
Update: We continue to make steady progress on JPG. We’ve revised the PRD following very helpful discussions with @overanalyser and @DocHabanero on how to mitigate the effects of the low underlying liquidity. The new PRD also has some low intensity engineering requests to give us access to more NFT pools. We’ll resubmit the revised PRD to EWG and then communicate a revised launch date.
3 Likes
Update: The PRD has been with Engineering. They’re investigating whether we can add UnicSwap [sic] pools which have about half of the market’s blue-chip fractional NFT liquidity. They’re also looking at the process for claiming the ETH proceeds from Fractional and Unicly auctions. We’ll communicate an updated timeline as soon as it’s available.
2 Likes