Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
john
@know
from @jihad's latest essay: "Think of Higher as a well-trained lens....the ability to shape and amplify attention while remaining true to its core principles. " sounds like a media org to me... what if we had a mechanism for funding media and financially aligning higher-businesses with the attention amplification enabled by higher? (note: what @kompreni deployed yesterday is not what is described below) consider:
7 replies
2 recasts
15 reactions
kompreni 🚂
@kompreni
Happy to adapt the smart contract to the relevant considerations 🫡
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
john
@know
@saintless.eth kompreni has already deployed a version, with 5% of fees going to buy $refi of /rebase it is controlled by them aethernet helped think through it a bit too: https://warpcast.com/know/0x5664764b
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
SAINTLESS
@saintless.eth
1. would be nice to have multi-sig / voting system / or some other prevention measures in place for the LP position to not be withdrawn without notice since a whole community will contribute to it 2. 5/45/50 split for fees as a starting point is great imo 5% → rebase 45% → goes to increasing the pool size (which is growing already since funds are sent to the contract from different sources) 50% → stack for funding at some point the latter becomes 95%
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
kompreni 🚂
@kompreni
Some thoughts (tl;dr feel good on splits, and lets think carefully about withdrawable LP) Update-able splits: Update-able splits sound good. The ability to direct fees toward a dynamic set of initiatives can be very powerful especially as the size of the locked LP grows (= more fees). We'd just need to define what constitutes a quorum for updating the split. We could use $higher, or voting could be mediated by, say, owners of an NFT. 5/45/50 is fine w/ me but I am really deferring to you there. Withdrawable LP: A withdrawable LP seems risky imo. Governance attacks have happened in the past. Unlike w/ fee splits, which you can change post- attack, if the LP is successfully attacked it's gone forever. In terms of interop w/ newer Uniswap versions - even if Uniswap v9000 comes out, the order execution still finds the best price so they'll use the v3 pool and the LP will still earn fees. Additionally, we could also deploy a new version on v9000, no harm in that.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
SAINTLESS
@saintless.eth
absolutely agree on risks associated with withdrawable LP, probably should be locked / burnt (but can you claim fees in those cases?) definitely in favor of updatable splits 'cause just adding to the LP non-stop will hit a diminishing returns at some point 5% to your project was just what I saw you say, def can see a 10% or whatever you suggest and we can all agree with
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
john
@know
Can you confirm if it’s possible to have the LP locked forever and then have the % splits editable via group? Multi-sig or nft owners? And how would that work in practice?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
