It makes sense,I agree with your calcaulation.
But I think we need cal it considering the global condition,as for you,you lost 6.5eth ,so you proposed for 7x compensation, but we dont know the others’ IL,we dont know whether the condition is same or not in both sushiswap and 1inch ,so is it necessary to cal it respectively? In that way, so the compesation multiple could be above or equal or below 7,then multiply it with discount(I think it should be how much the team should be responsible for)
Anyway, we need data to convice the team
And we need team to do a clear LM announcement in the future, 200k reward per month is not good for bootstrapping the popularity,I think the IL is due to circulating supply in the market, current circulating ratio is so low and most opium pair trades happen in DEX,so LP for Opium is more vulnerable to risk,so LP need more reward to hedge the high IL risk. So I suggest the circulation supply could be over 10m by the end of the year,what do you think?
Hi VFN,
Just live: It was hard to get through the Bancor DAO, but $opium now is whitelisted and there is a pool with IL protection (check Bancor terms!)
On your question: IL risk is part of any liquidity mining, all the market and most of the pools are in the same position. I really in favour of good solution, thats why team did great job on Bancor pool and preparing several liquidity mining and thinking of possible loyalty rewards. Any constructive ideas we should discuss!
The main complaint here, is that we were told the liquidity mining program would continue through may. Then two weeks into may (after a big price dump too) the program was terminated without warning or compensation. Had I known the program would be retroactively canceled I would have removed liquidity at the start of the month and saved myself a lot of pain. At the very least you should consider distributing the corresponding rewards for those two weeks.
A similar situation happened with the BSC pool, we were told the program would continue until it was decided it would stop and that we would be warned BEFORE it ended.
I’ve checked other pools from 1inch (+ some similar projects) and compared their IL with the ETH-OPIUM pool.
Exactly this. Without prior discussion or warning, what do you expected the community’s reaction will be?
Note that this is since april and not since the beginning, most loyal participants have higher IL. Overtime farming profits can diminish IL. Which was probably the strategy of most OG LPs.
I see your point, I have asked communication team to explain what happened. We should work something out regarding this, I agree.
Agree. The price dumps from $20 to $2.5, The IL for early LP should be larger
Hi @andrey and @nick, Thank you for taking the time to reply and give your input.
Apart from the discussion on compensating IL. Are we on the same page that liquidity providers should be compensated for the month of May as (1) the pool was supposed to be running for that month, (2) for the first two weeks of the month, the team was saying on Telegram that the rewards were still counting and (3) there was no community voting around stopping the 1Inch-ETH-OPIUM pool.
Is that fair to say that the original proposal must be honoured and that liquidity providers should be paid their rewards?
How does the proposal below looks on the compensation terms?
If Dr.Opium is used for the above, they charity period must start from 1st of June (Opt 4) or 16th of May if option 2 is the winner.
Let’s sort this issue out first as I believe we all agree it doesn’t require much discussion and then we can tackle the IL issue.
Hi @andrey and @nick could you guys share with us the next steps to get the rewards for May paid to LPs?
Hey @vfn! You can create voting on Snapshot (Snapshot) on the proposal and ask the community to vote on it.
Hi @nakrmili,
I’d first like some input from @andrey and/or @nick. The community doesn’t hold the funds, so, we can vote all day long, and regardless of the outcome the team is the one deciding to pay or not, as they did when they decided by themselves to not only stop the rewards program for the month of May, half way through the month, and to also not pay the LPs.
@andrey said we should work something out, that’s the purpose of the forum, to get the something worked out before it goes into signal vote.
As you are a moderator, you might have more chance to reach out to the other members of the team to get their commitment on paying the rewards and then we can proceed with voting what the terms for the payment are.
Hey @vfn ,
The ecosystem fund is governed by the $OPIUM token holders. All you need is to create voting and then the final decision will be implemented automatically (one can also use SafeSnap).
Hi @nakrmili,
Thank you for clarifying. I have created the voting with the options presented above.
@dennis we can create another voting proposal for the impermanent loss once we sort the May rewards.
For me it seems like your question is not valid. Normally in any voting (also standard governance voting) there is proposal that is either passing or not, you gave 4 options of “yes” and zero options of “no”. In this “unfair” way any proposed idea will pass in one or another way.
May be contributors of Opium Team can also propose to formalise SafeSnap voting criteria more. It was already proposed and assumed that SnapShot and SafeSnap are using standard practices.
Hi @andrey,
The community had already voted to pay the rewards. The rewards for May had been already approved. The team acted against the community and stoped the program without consulting the community.
The 4 options given is for the community to decide if LPs should receive 2 weeks worth of rewards or the full 4 weeks. Whether to give a reward or not was voted on a proposal created by the team.
In the post where they explain the program it says:
The community is proposing to increase rewards four times to 50k $Opium per week. The team is willing to support this experiment for a 1inch liquidity protocol for long term.
Source: New liquidity mining on Opium Protocol | by Andrey Belyakov | Opium Team | Medium
As you can see, there is nowhere saying the program was intended to last only 2 months (March and April), but instead, “for long term”.
This is the vote referred to in the article, that achieved 97% approval: Snapshot
If there was a vote for stopping the liquidity mining program in the month of May, I’m sorry but I missed it completely. If you can point that out I believe the right thing to do would be to reconsider the options, if not I’m afraid the “unfair” is not to pay?
In any case, I have asked for feedback in the proposal as you can see above, and for the past 2 months no one argued or suggested anything different. The chance was given to anyone to provide feedback and to discuss it. Any other member of the community had months to visit the forum and discuss it. Members of the team and moderators had months to do the same.
With the context above how fair or unfair does the proposed voting options look?
While I have your attention, I’d appreciate if you could provide feedback on the other issue discussed in this thread, that’s related to impermanent loss compensation to LPs.
Yeah, first of all I should state that I personally was not involved in liquidity mining program on ethereum, because all my previous experience in defi showed that providing liquidity is good idea only if you ready to take loooong exposure on an asset (6+ months not less)
BUT the same time I was involved in BSC LP mining journey, and, SURELY without ANY illusion that I avoid in some magic way impermanent losses… I put little funds there just to play with bridge mechanics and BSC as well…
So I feels that I had to clarify my situation before express my further vision.
In general I agree with an idea of “reward” for those brave peoples who decide to provide liquidity in such a risky environment (new token itself without any trading historical data, + linearly vested tokens from seed investors, etc…)
These peoples deserve it especially those who keep their liquidity for long period.
But, let me point one important detail - all these peoples made their own decisions to do what they did.
The same as me, who decide NOT to do so.
And in terms of “financial game” I see no reason why Opium protocol SHOULD compensate wrong decisions of market participants. You(and every one) have seen the conditions, potential gains&loses… and you decide to take this opportunity and risks involved.
And now, after few months I feel I was right in my decision not to participate.
But now you ask compensation… and if Opium governance decide to compensate by emitting new tokens to players like you - this fact immediately inverse my situation and in this case I should accept that I was wrong, because it was better idea to participate.
So, please, dont get me wrong, I just wanted to share one aspect from my point of view…
The whole thing from my POV is that except “financial game” there is “community thing”… which is VERY important for any project. And as I said - personally I vote FOR rewarding these brave peoples who provide liquidity. (btw, i have little doubts that in 1 year horizon $OPIUM will return to 10+ USD value so your funds will be recovered)
And we just need to find adequate bounds for such rewards.
The Opium team forget about this discussion for 2 months as I see in your latest message - yes, this is uuge :))) but I am sure they have reason for that, they use to just build products… all these governance\discussion stuff is pretty new for them as for most of us too… we all will teach to these new mechanics every new day. And made mistakes\fuckups. 2 months without response from core team in such important and hot subject - is indeed not good. (the same time - lets count how much stuff was updated on the platform! + imagine how much stuff we dont know yet , sure thing they definitely working hard )
ahh… guys\galas sorry my reply seems like a little book already haha
TLDR (LOL)
I have seen your voting on snapshot and I found it overweighted into your personal position in terms of wording.
After reading it I decide to post new thread where ask to discuss our principles applied to signal\proposals we made. Please check this out here
And one little example of how AAVE did it… I found the topic which is not ordinal in terms of agreement between participants… but check how neutral IS the final voting wording.
So I agree with Andrey here… at least you should add options for those who has inverse meaning on the subject 
But in general I think it was too early initiate snapshot voting )))
… any way… we all still learning how to play in these governance field… so its all fine
damn… I feel I never wrote that huge messages in English (not my native lng) before 
Hi @sergelove, thank you for your input.
You are absolutely right, most people that have been around for a while and have some DeFi experience will understand at least a little bit of the risks involved and be aware of impermanent loss.
Most LPs will take some impermanent loss in the short term to accumulate the rewards provided, that could potentially mitigate the IL suffered. I personally, provided liquidity on that basis, that the extra rewards I would get for all the weeks would cover any short term IL, once $OPIUM token appreciated a bit more. I was supporting the team while things were getting built, taking the risk of losing ETH in exchange for $OPIUM and accumulating extra $OPIUM from the rewards.
The whole point of this thread is that the team that had announced that they would support the program for the “long term”, decided by themselves, with not voting and no heads up, to stop the program mid May.
If that never happened, I would be accumulating $OPIUM, and if/when opium would go back up, I would likely recover the IL and ideally make a profit.
The compensation proposed in this thread is to show some respect and community support to the LPs that provided liquidity since the beginning and supported the project.
I started providing liquidity in the month of Feb and I was going to remove it at the end of the month/beginning of march, however when the team committed to increase the rewards to 200k $OPIUM/month, and to do that for the long term I decided to not withdraw the funds and keep providing liquidity.
No LP was expecting that sort of behaviour from the team.
I hope that helps understanding that the compensation request is not just because we “lost” money and want something in return. It’s because we were doing our part of the deal, but the team didn’t follow through with theirs.
Thanks vfn and sergelove,
I personally very neutral on voting topic, I just pointing out that voting should be done correctly.
I just read Discussion: Community voting principles and it is great summary. I would structure/format it into the more readable memo, the rest is amazing. Taking MakerDAO principles is a good idea, have you seen that Maker is doing last step into the full decentralisation and full DAO?
So, vfn, why don’t you rephrase your voting into complete full set of answers and start a new voting?
We will try to engage community into voting
Hi @nakrmili
The ecosystem fund is governed by the $OPIUM token holders. All you need is to create voting and then the final decision will be implemented automatically (one can also use SafeSnap).
How can we get it implemented now that the voting period has ended?