GFP 3 - Voting with LP Tokens

Final GFPs
,
1

Proposal Idea

The idea is to allow Liquidity Providers (LP) of both Guard/USDT and Guard/BUSD to be used as a snapshot vote in forthcoming proposals

I have drafted up a proposal in the format required so it can easily move through this process if it’s all good

Voting with guard raids, pools and lending networks will be considered in forthcoming proposals

PROPOSAL NAME:

Establish guidelines for GUARD LP tokens to be used in a snapshot vote

PROPOSAL CATEGORY:

Process

TEAM DESCRIPTION:

@Sean K from the Special Council of the Guard Foundation

ABSTRACT:

The current voting system does not allow LP holders to be considered in voting power calculations for GUARD DAO Governance

Currently there is approx 7,675,651.269 GUARD in LP’s

BENEFITS TO THE GUARDIAN ECOSYSTEM:

This allows all GUARD holders to benefit the DAO

Guard liquidity is primarily a community-supported initiative. By providing liquidity, token holders are supporting the ability for newcomers to join the DAO via token purchases, however, this critical action currently prevents liquidity providers from participating in governance.

By enabling LP tokens to vote, it ensures that token holders that are supporting liquidity can vote, which will greatly increase participation in the DAO

STEPS TO IMPLEMENT & TIMELINE:

The work will start as soon as the proposal is passed and will take 3-5 days to complete

The work involves making scripts so its compatible with snapshot

COST

$2k in either Guard or USDC/USDT

$1k paid upfront
$1k paid on completion

The foundation will contract the developer from Knightswap, since they are familiar with Knightswap

9 Likes
2

Great idea! This will really help our ecosystem specifically, because so many of us are providing liquidity, and I assume would want to be participating in governance at the same time.

Greg’s Addition

I post these little excerpts here and there aiming at helping you, the reader, learn the proposal process. These comments don’t reflect Foundation or SC opinions.

Some of you might have noticed that Sean filled out the draft template ahead of time. Meanwhile, the previous proposals simply shared an idea. Both are allowed.

If you want to draft a full template right off the bat, because perhaps you have it all in your mind, go for it.

If you have an idea, thought about it, and want to expand on it via community feedback, you can just share your idea and get the community feedback you’re looking for. Then, in the next step, the GFP Draft, you can expand on your idea, in addition to adding all the community feedback you’ve received, by working through filling out the draft template.

8 Likes
3

Excellent idea. This is important so LP providers don’t have to break their pair to participate in governance.

8 Likes
4

I like the idea however I think removing the payment in GUARD, and making payment to developer only in stable is optimal.

This prevents a future “sell” on the Guard chart and encourages a “buy”.

The questions become…

  1. Does the foundation have $2k to fund this and if so, where did the $2k come from?

  2. Also, while I agree that the natural recommendation would be to use the Knightswap dev, how do we as a community know this is fair pricing?

For those that may be ignorant to the market pricing of devs, is $2k a good deal, middle of the road, a bad deal for “scripts”.

  1. Do we have an official quote from Knightswap for this project or is $2k a guess?

  2. Also, what future maintenance cost is involved? If I understand, GuardFDN would own custom scripts that integrate with Snapshot.org (via API???). What happens when security updates need to be done or snapshot.org cancels 3rd party script integrations?

  3. How will the code be audited?

  4. Have we compared pricing to create our own snapshot-esq GuardFDN only tool that is cheaper to maintain (less effort), more future proof (less risk), and a potential revenue source (more optionality)?

Those are my thoughts…this proposal “sounds good” in thought and I’m sure comes from a great heart place…but I think a few wholes exists…as it sits now.

1 Like
5

IMO. The benefit of this proposal to the community far exceeds the cost of 2k. I also prefer using a trusted developer that is familiar with what our mission is. If the developer does sell the 2k Guard payment, it will have minimal effect in the overall scheme of things.

We are fortunate that we have a treasury to work with to help us collectively build some big things. I personally like to look at the bigger picture and if it will benefit the community first and foremost.

5 Likes
6

Jason appreciate your comments and below are my answers

As both an SC member and also a holder I want the best for the FDN and therefore feel this is an important piece to move forwards with

To quote you on the ‘sell’ on Guard if we pay in Guard, then we are assuming that the developer will do this. This might not be the case here

  1. Yes the Foundation does have $2k, the multi sig wallet is public and will be shared in the help resources
  2. We have checked with our DAO Administrators on the price and they agree that this is of fair value
  3. The $2k is a quote from the dev
  4. There are no maintenance costs, and if snapshot were to cancel 3rd party integrations then it would be upto the FDN to decide next steps
  5. Why would we want an audit from a trusted dev? This would be more cost and irrelevant in my opinion
  6. No we have not, if this is something you would like to explore then feel free to
2 Likes
7

I am sorry if this has been discussed but i am new to discourse and am having trouble finding the answers I am looking for. So i am hoping someone can help here and if this is not the right location i have no problem moving the discussion to the correct thread. I have been a guard holder since launch( yes i round tripped ) and am currenlty still using the compounder with BUSD. Has there been an agreement on what he new stable will be( i saw USDT mentioned ) ? I also saw something about removing the 1% tax . ( again i am having a hard time figuring out discourse MY apologies.)
So my question is… Should i be breaking my LP from BUSD? If so to what Stable??. And will there still be a 1% tax if i break it?

8

Hey Boogie

Let me answer these Qs best I can.

Has there been an agreement on what he new stable will be( i saw USDT mentioned ) ?

Yes. It is USDT…I can’t find the post quickly on discourse… basically the LP pair is not a GuardFDN thing as anyone can make any pair with any token…the LP is really a Knightswap thing and they discussed it in passing Discord

I also saw something about removing the 1% tax . ( again i am having a hard time figuring out discourse MY apologies.)

The USDT and BUSD pools where whitelisted to remove the 1% tax per GFP-1: Whitelist Guard/BUSD and Guard/USDT Pools on KnightSwap - Process - #28 by gregory

There is also this GFP which seeks to remove the tax totally GFP-2: Remove GUARD Tax - #14 by gregory

So my question is… Should i be breaking my LP from BUSD? If so to what Stable??. And will there still be a 1% tax if i break it?

Knightswap discord and TG gives instruction. They built a migration tool Discord or Telegram: Contact @knightswap

2 Likes
9

Thanks for this Jason. @BoogieB Hopefully this answers your questions. And dont worry Im still learning how to navigate Discourse!!

10

Thank you, Jason.

I see the GUARD/USDT farm is now available on Knightswap Financial. However, there’s no option to deposit this new LP in the Knightswap autocompounder yet.

Do we know if there will be an option on the autocompounder for the new pair?

I’m also unclear if we’re to go ahead and figure this out ourselves or if there will be a procedure outlined on the best practices for moving from G/BUSD to G/USDT?

11

Autocompounder for the new pair is a later thing as KS’s focus is on migrating the pairs first.

Figure it out on your own :grin: KS had a migration button but MEV bots were taking advantage of it so they removed it.

Basically it’s reverse process of creating LP manually

  1. Unstake from compounder or farm; thus putting the LP into your wallet

  2. Click liquidity on KS site

  3. Remove liquidity (you may have to enable the contracts before remove is visible or actionable)

The individual tokens will now be In your wallet

  1. Swap BUSD for USDT on KS or use Pancakeswap for better pricing (less slippage) if you have a large amount

  2. On KS create the new liquidity pair of GUARD-USDT
    (you may have to enable the contracts for USDT and GUARD before Add is visible or actionable)

  3. Hold in wallet and wait for compounder OR deposit in farm that is already on KS for the new pair

13

Hey everyone. Thanks for all the participation!

Even though the thread has been archived, feel free to continue the conversation via the General chat in Discourse. You can access it by clicking the chat bubble icon on the top right side of your page.

The proposal is now posted on Snapshot.

You can access the Snapshot and vote here.

14

We’ve been in the implemention phase after the proposal passed at a 77.18% pass rate.

We’re working with the author and his team to complete the steps detailed in the implementation section of this proposal.

Updates on the progress will be posted here.

Greg’s Addition

I post these little excerpts here and there aiming at helping you, the reader, learn the proposal process. These comments don’t reflect Foundation or SC opinions.

A grant adds an additional few steps. To receive a grant, the author has to pass a KYC with the foundation, and also sign a grant agreement document. After these steps are done, the foundation can give the community permitted grant to the author and the work can start.