Post 9 — @b3nnn

Created: 2025-12-12T06:07:31.683Z

Thanks for the great questions and analysis. A couple of points just to make sure we keep aligned on the purpose here.

ChaseMedia:

My view is that this seems to be focusing on a problem that isn’t the most prominent problem we should be solving. From the original proposal it states ‘attract top builders’ and ‘improved builder onboarding’. Is driving more demand to the network not the area we should be focusing resources on instead?

The original proposal made clear that we would be focusing on actively managing our capital to support our goals. Attracting top builders is absolutely a top priority, and both were included in the proposal

Titan-Node:

From what I see on-chain, even small $500 swaps often trigger Binance bots to re balance the pool within seconds.

CEX bots will continue to operate through the pool and pay fees to the liquidity provider (us!). Individual trades don’t happen in isolation and bots will extract value from the pool, but larger liquidity reduces the amount of value bots can extract (lower price movements means smaller arb opportunities for bots)

Titan-Node:

I would argue the slippage on $25,000 swap made in $1,000 - $2,000 increments would be minimal or mostly static.

Of course this introduces a whole other argument that requires incremental sells (which is annoying)

The whole other argument is a core UX issue we made the proposal to resolve I love the hacky nature of startups as much as anyone, but it is at odds with the Capital Markets Advisory Board’s ambition to have Tier 1 Capital Practices . Incremental sells can work to reduce slippage of course but makes us seem a bit unserious

vires-in-numeris:

Also, why the 0.3% pool and not the 1% pool?

Arrakis covered some key considerations about analysing impact and performance, but to me “generate fees” is a nice outcome of protocol owned liquidity rather than a core objective of this proposal. We can make generating fees a more prominent objective if there is a strong desire to do so, but an increase in fees this way is increased costs (relative to 0.3% fee) for participants… I’m not sure that is a net benefit