SPS Governance Proposal - Contract Flowdesk for SPS Market Making Services
a88ec6ca1d044d022055125fc03a0af42461a3cf
This proposal is to hire Flowdesk to provide Market Making services for the SPS token. After collecting feedback from the community, option 2 in the term sheet below was chosen to bring forward as a proposal.
If this proposal passes the SPS DAO will contract Flowdesk to provide market making services for the SPS:USD trading pair on Crypto.com and the SPS:USDT pair on Gate.io. The SPS DAO will provide 40,000 USDT and $40,000 worth of SPS for trading liquidity, scheduled to be returned upon contract completion, as well as allocate $60,000 for 12 months of service fees.
Author notes
I feel this proposal is extremely time sensitive and have decided to create it now. Over the last several months I've spent a fair bit of time working to keep our SPS listings on centralized exchanges. Without a market maker or an immediate abundance of organic volume and liquidity appearing on these trading pairs, it's just a matter of time before they delist SPS.
That said, it's not for me to decide if we do or do not keep these listings. It is for the DAO to decide. I've recently made a post sharing all of the information I can on the topic to help you all make an educated decision. It's important to me that we have a chance to decide for ourselves before the decision is made for us. Thanks for your time and consideration.
I trust you to know what's right for us in this topic.
For posterity, I'm pretty neutral on this topic in general. That said I do think this is likely the best deal we'll get on a reliable and transparent arbitrage market maker. We may be able to get something cheaper with a random company if I spent a few more months looking, but they're offering decent rates for the service they provide and we probably don't have a few more months to choose a course of action.
I was willing to do 1 MM as a compromise, but I prefer 0. So I will vote against because I think its a waste of money and we get no value.
Paying an automated MM to create fake trades is all this will do in reality. While I understand it creates the impression in people's minds that we have activity, its really just something that "feels good". Its a waste of money and we don't need it.
These are irrelevant markets and this "pay to play" model is extremely distasteful. I'm sure there are people that actually think this provides value by marketing the game, but I'm also sure there are many that know that's simply not true and these "market makers" are just churning trades to make sure the exchange gets some revenue.
We have decentralized exchanges that can exchange our assets into any crypto, so the purpose of paying payola to keep these 2nd tier markets filled with fake volume is a pure destruction of money. We should protect our money better in my opinion, and be real about what value this provides or we will run out of money fast.
All good points. I think we have to consider if it's worth it to have a way for people to get SPS exposure from FIAT in one step. RoyalEagle was pointing out that it typically takes him I think 4 steps and multiple trades to go from FIAT to SPS.
CDC gives us a FIAT straight to SPS option. The question becomes - is that worth it? Ie most people here now are crypto savy enough to navigate the multiple exchanges needed to buy SPS. But if we plan to onboard new players they will need an easy in. Would CDC be that in? I don't know. But even new players will have to buy SPS if they want to earn via gameplay and invest in their accounts long term (as opposed to just renting SPS).
I don't like the model either, but that is how it works at the moment (until we generate organic volume). Exchange listings may me vital as the next run kicks in... or they may not be. That's an important decision we have to make.
I would be willing to bet that almost no SPS is bought on exchanges. The people that know about SPS and buy it, use the decentralized exchanges hive-engine and pancakeswap.
My first point is we've had these exchanges and they did absolutely nothing. People point to volume on these exchanges, but its not real demand. Its good old fashioned wash trades where the MM buys and sells to himself or his aligned accts.
If we were talking about Binance or Coinbase then I would understand, but lets not kid ourselves we get NO new players or money into the game via these 3 exchanges. In fact we've already tried this. And everyone knows the saying about the definition of "insanity".
We don't have the money to just throw around for the perception of having an "exchange listing" that won't bring any value. Like I said I was willing to accept 1 exchange for a compromise to those people that FEEL it will one day change and be helpful. But that didn't work, the people for the exchanges wanted to go for 2 exchanges and pay more money that will be wasted.
The one thing I haven't heard in any of these conversations is anyone explain how these exchanges have in the past helped us bring people/money into the game. The reason is because in our hearts we know it isn't true as our token sits at $0.0135 and at an all time low and the number of new players we get is close to 0.
I would ask everyone to think for themselves, would this $60k be better spent on something else? Something that would actually bring people into the game or bring money into the system?
I know its nice to spend someone else's money, but if this were your personal fund (to everyone), would you really spend it on this or would you find something for $60k that would actually provide value that is real and noticeable?
I'm not mad at anyone for voting for this, I just think its time for us to make hard decisions and cutting wasteful spending that has proven its lack of value is a good place to start.
I hear you loud and clear, and I'm not sure which way I'm voting yet. I'm just looking at it form the perspective that all of what you detail happened in a deep bear, and that we literally spent 0 effort even trying to bring in new players. My question is... when a bull kicks in and we are actively working to onboard new players... will having these listings be worth it? It's a matter of positioning and looking ahead instead of looking at past mistakes. Past mistakes go deeper than saying these listings did nothing in the past - there are a lot of other reasons we have not been bringing in new players.
As I said I'm undecided right now, and appreciate your POV as always!
If we want to have something "just in case" we hit a bull, then I think we should spend as little money as possible to have that available option. That's why I was willing to accept 1 exchange as a compromise.
But going for 2 exchanges is ignoring the point that these have been a waste of money and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Its a vote that says for ONLY $18k MORE dollars (in addition to the $42k for one) we can have two tier 2 exchanges (instead of 1) providing NO VALUE until such time they MIGHT be useful when everything else is in line.
If the proposal is changed to 1 exchange and we put some fiscal discipline into our thought process then I wouldn't vote against it in deference to your point of view (and the others that think the same way). But if it stays as 2 exchanges, then I think we are not really serious in protecting the capital in the DAO and to me that's a big mistake.
I didn't vote wolf's proposal to save the DAO money because I don't think we should be risking $50k at this time on something speculative. I surely would rather have his attempt to grow his game (and thus ours) rather than repeat the same wasteful spending to 2nd tier exchanges that require payola for us to be listed.
And I also appreciate the dialogue Jimmy, I'm not mad at you or anyone who votes for it. My negativity for this is:
My perspective is that the days of exposure on centralization acting as marketing are over now that there are so so many tokens. Before it seemed as though being one of 10 coins out of 500 moving a day might draw some new interest, but now there are thousands of coins on these big exchanges, thus the exposure gained may be much lower now.
I think supporting more pairings on HiveEngine + Onboarding videos on how to make the process easy might be a better way to go. I have no idea either, and also am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to think I have the correct answer. Just sitting in my chair trying to predict behavior.
Agreed. We should be spending money to get more players, not fake trades. The player base is priority right now.
Once we have too many players and they are asking for exchange services then we revisit this proposal.
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @clayboyn!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2023-11-08 10:34 UTC
Thank you for putting up this proposal @clayboyn. I am currently inclined to vote "no", but waiting for more folks to chime in before casting my vote.
My main issues are similar to @davemccoy's. In short:
Would love to hear more people chime in with their thoughts.
To be perfectly honest I don't use these centralized exchanges Crypto.com and Gate.io at all, it is much more convenient to exchange through Pancakeswap for example and although I am a proponent that a listing on a centralized exchange is necessary to increase volume and demand for SPS, probably Binance, Kukoin even Huobi could do a better job advertising the game as a brand.
This might be more complicated than they say, but that's what I think, the listing should be accompanied by advertising about the game as well, to encourage the masses to try Splinterlands and further acquire the SPS token once they are in and know all its use cases.
I might vote yes if its only one. (prefer crypto.com)
Don't know, probably best i refrain from voting on subjects i know jack shit about🤣
I'm likely to just abstain myself. That said, this is what the community feedback in Discord said people want a vote on... I could switch it to 1 if that's what more people want.
Market makers are undeniably crucial, particularly within centralized exchanges, and they hold immense significance for smaller marketcap coins like SPS. Their presence ensures trading activity, preventing the negative feedback loop that could result from a lack of liquidity, leading to less user activity, less liquidity and so on.
However, what makes decentralized exchanges (DEXs) truly remarkable is their accessibility. They empower virtually anyone to participate as a market maker, removing the need for substantial capital reserves. This is why I believe DEXs are the future. DEXs offer us the autonomy to manage liquidity as a community without over-reliance on the DAO or centralized market makers who charge us more than @clayboyn's salary as a retainer!
Therefore, I believe using these funds for further investments in marketing/DEXs can bring us MUCH more value. This entails exploring additional blockchain networks like Base, Polygon, and Arbitrum and receiving multipliers on their biggest DEXs. I'd appreciate an estimate of the costs involved in expanding SPS's presence on these chains, as well as enhancing our position on platforms such as Pancakeswap V3 through getting a multiplier for our LP. These investments will bolster our visibility among our core audience – web3 native users.
Ultimately, by prioritizing DEXs and broadening our reach to compatible blockchain networks, we will have access to a much wider userbase. In fact, out of 10+ people I spoke to at a web3 meetup in Australia, literally no one heard of Hive or Splinterlands, a couple of them even work in GameFi and know the industry very well! I honestly believe this strategic shift holds immense potential for SPS to flourish within the web3 community. Splinterlands is one of the most sustainable web3 play and earn game, thanks to our DAO's revenue share structure and the 2% DEC market burn:). Now it is time to focus on growth by spreading this message.
I beg no more useless spending like paying a b-list rapper god knows how much to send out a tweet, or being featured on an Imagine Dragons video.
This comment has certainly gone on a bit of a tangent, so in summary: no to this proposal, but thank you Clay for taking the time to put this together.
Fair enough! As I've said elsewhere, I'll likely abstain from voting on this proposal as I don't feel very strongly either way. I am also a fan of leaning more heavily into dex and establishing new LPs. That said, the community deserves a chance to act before it's too late, thus I paid for/made the proposal.
i wrote here my thoughts about it. hope its helpful for some: https://peakd.com/hive-13323/@mangowambo/embracing-decentralization-the-case-for-prioritizing-liquidity-pools-over-centralized-exchanges-for-the-sps-token
tldr: i will vote down, because i prefer DEXs.
Very well said, our core target should be web3 native users and reaching to them through DEX on other chains seems more valuable.
i wonder what target group fake data is supposed to attract on the markets. amateur traders who won't even look at what the token stands for ? that would not be sustainable!
the people who are familiar with the topic will use hive or other swap services, and the people who have no idea about any of this will buy credits...
Congratulations @clayboyn! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next payout target is 22000 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
I had a horrible experience using CDC to buy SPS and immediately went back to using DeX options like pancakeswap. I feel like this is a waste of DAO funds as the demand for a centralized listing just isn't there. If large investors want to make a large OTC order, then let them work with you directly on behalf of the DAO.
Hi @clayboyn, thanks for putting this together for us!
I am in Canada and have recently used Crypto.com to acquire SPS and bridge into the game using the terablock option. Unfortunately, Binance no longer supports Canada and that is where I would normally acquire HIVE and then send it directly to my HIVE wallet. (not sure where else to get HIVE / SPS from Canada otherwise that isn't a direct purchase from the game website with a credit card).
Could you maybe explain what concerns we might have if say for example we don't use a Market Maker and instead I were to buy USDC from Crypto.com and withdraw on the BEP20 network and then use the terablock option to swap / bridge the USDC on BSC to SPS on HIVE.
Would there be liquidity issues in the long term or where does the SPS come from when we use the terablock service?
Similarly, do you know where the MetaMAsk Swap option gets its SPS from?
Thanks for your time and help!
There would be no issues using other tokens and defi to acquire SPS. The centralized exchanges are mainly for people that want super easy on/off ramps and don't feel comfortable using DeFi.
Thanks @clayboyn for the quick response!
In the spirit of DECRENTRALIZATION, I must vote, NO.
Honourable members of the DAO,
We are officially in a crypto bull market since BTC passed key resistance $36.5K . All the world is now watching crypto because of these high gains in ALT coins this year already https://cryptobubbles.net . Meme coins that have no intrinsic value or fundamentals are pumping just because of exposure on various exchanges and social networks. Our proof of worth SPS token needs this same exposure during this crypto bull market.
We cannot merely rely on HIVE network to promote our coins, because Crypto Mining networks are not outperforming crypto listed on exchanges https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqfGilVSOko
ALT coin season has already begun, lets vote to take of advantage of it, timing is crucial. Missing out on these potentially lucrative global exchange listings in this current crypto bull market doesn't make any sense.
Until I see a better alternative SPS global marketing strategy I'll be voting YES😃
Best Regards
The real reason alot of people have cold feet about crypto exchanges? https://youtu.be/RBnzRRFA8n8?t=1258
https://youtu.be/Cw29h7LhEuE?t=224 Lets not get left behind because of irrational fears like what happened 10 years ago. BTC didn't achieve its geometric growth without exposure on crypto exchanges
Vote YES 😃
Dear Clayboyn, would it be possible to refrain from using huge black backgrounds when sharing positive data in DAO proposals? This is meant to be positive news after all. Perhaps the table colors could be easily reversed with mspaint program like this
https://youtu.be/zu-8B0sqvTA?t=116
LUX·ET·VERITAS
I understand the reasons given by those who oppose the proposal, and I think they are valid and make sense. Some that I read included:
Let's consider the less crypto-gaming savvy person - especially one who is not fully comfortable with technology. This person doesn't have a cold storage wallet or stacks of sats and will likely not utilize a Dex for years, they will solely transact on exchanges. They will belly up to coinbase or if they are partial to Matt Damon, crypto.com to buy their first bitcoin and then an alt or two. It is all new to this person.
As Clayboyn stated in his author's note:
Thanks for reading and considering this.
On a side note, I love the way people are communicating on this thread - sharing differing opinions respectfully with one another. Regardless of the outcome of this particular proposal - this style of communication within our community is what gets me most hopeful. - Let's go!
Hello. I think that the fee is high to be created using Crypto.com. Is it possible to get Binance or Coinbase ?
I have to quote Jeremiah
Agreed with @jeremiahcustis
Crypto.com is basically an offramp to exchange SPS for FIAT and withdraw. If SPS would be on higher levels I would actually use it. And here is the problem. Others would too. Creating selling pressure on crypto.com
if the exchange was binance i was going to vote yes. and i also think that this proposal was suggested when we had gazillion of players and the team was trying to have many sps channels. With the current state of player base I dont think it is worth it, maybe next year when the bull run for alts starts. I would vote for this
This is more of a stepping stone to get to a tier 1 exchange listing. We don't have the connections or funds to do one of those "industry darling" hype project moves and just list on all of the exchanges without a released product.
Oh man, this is not good. The proposal failed. I don't think people understand the importance of having a market makers on CEXs.
There are few things people need to be aware of...
1.) THE IMPORTANCE OF A CEX
Listing your project on a CEX is important for the growth of the project, price discovery, awareness, and most important accessibility by NEW investors/users. The more options you have to buy the token, the easier it is to grow.
2.) THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING HEALTHY TRADING VOLUMES (ie. Market Making)
When you list on a centralized exchange, there comes certain requirements your trading pair must maintain in order to stay listed on that exchange. ALL centralized exchanges require that your trading pair is LIQUID... ie. there are healthy opportunities for users to buy and sell within certain price ranges from the current price. If your project DOES NOT MAINTAIN that healthy liquidity of the pair it will get delisted. Market Makers are automated systems that maintain healthy trading volumes on both sides of the trading pair. In most cases it is MANDATORY that a project must have a Market Maker. Larger projects can usually take the risk of not having one as their token usually is very popular and their traders tend to organically provide acceptable liquidity. If your not in the top 100 cryptos, you will most likely need to use MM on your listings.
3.) HOW THIS COULD HURT SPS
Not providing Market Making (ie. liquidity) to the CEX trading pairs WILL;
PROPOSED SOLUTION
- @clayboyn Resubmit the proposal but properly explain the importance of Market Making to the community, as by reading most of the comments, people clearly don't understand the importance of this situation
- Support Market Making of USDT trading pairs on 2 exchanges (MEXC & Gate.io) for a contract period of 6 months.
My reasoning for MEXC rather than Crypto.com is becuase their existing trading volumes don't appear to be that good. Although Crypto.com in my opinion is the closest to ACCESSIBILITY for mainstream new mobile users, it doesn't appear to be popular for our token. If the trading volumes of MEXC are from market making and Crypto.com has NO market making... than I would go with Crypto.com instead of MEXC.