Arbitrages aren’t a bad thing per se. It brings back equilibrium. It becomes a problem when it drains liquidity.
I’m a big advocate of diversification when it come to DAO’s treasuries. Multiple factors can affect the value of tokens. Fud, psy ops, bear market, exploits, smart contract errors, etc.
Here are some ressources:
Wouldn’t it be easiest to just use Pulsechain that’s forking Eth next month and duplicating the entire Eth system state including NFTs. It’s an L1 faster and cheaper than any L2. Everyones Eth tokens will be automatically duplicated just change MetaMask settings. Is anyone in this chat even aware of Pulsechain Network and the Pulse exchange being built now and how we can benefit.
First of all, I would like to thank the whole team for keep building in Red Sea waters. Your resiliency power is incredible.
This will be my first comment in Discourse. After being an investor (and LP) for more than six months, I would like to address a few things before commenting on the idea of going multi-chain.
I like the value proposition of Alchemist, of being a crypto incubator backed by 1% of inflation every two weeks. The main challenge with this idea is that the price of Mist its correlated with the sustainability of the whole project. Before the big hit, the price of Mist was sustained by the rumor of Uniswap using MistX technology. When the monetization model of MistX failed, the whole sandcastle collapsed. What tells me this story? That the core product was MistX (not Copper nor Crucible). The market perceived that MistX was the Philosophical Stone that would take the Alchemist ecosystem to another level. We need to focus on that particular project to put Alchemist in the spotlight again. Its OK to have a core product and also satellite products.
The main issue with the current project is the lack of clear tokenomics. The utility of Mist is solely focused on the funding/inflation aspect. There are no incentives to hold Mist. What’s the utility of the token? I can’t even vote with Mist, only LPs can.
I know that there is a liquidity pool of MIST - ETH that can give one access to the benefits of Crucible, but that’s not enough. Mist holders don’t see any benefit. I like what Beethoven (a fantom project) has done with their recent revamp of their tokenomics. They have an 80/20 pool as the main pool, LPs stake that pool and earn fees from the protocol + voting powers + liquidity mining decisions (ve model).
Before talking about expanding Mist/Crucible to other chains, we need to establish a team that is not related to any of the projects, whose sole purpose is to think on a revamp of the tokenomics and how each Alchemist product can feed each other. I’ve seen people claiming “Wen MistX token?” “When Copper token?” There is a significant misalignment in how we communicate the value proposition of $MIST, and this issue needs to be addressed now before thinking other things IMHO.
Thanks, everyone.
I believe that there are three main questions here.
- Should Alchemist extend it’s core line of applications to other blockchains & L2’s?
- What is the value proposition for mist on these other chains.
- How interoperable is mist between chains.
I think the first question is a yes in almost all the time. Copper, Crucible, and MistX should be on almost all EVM based blockchains and L2s. For example, if Copper is the first LBP product offering on all the new chains then it will further grow its brand and mind-space for those looking to use LBPs. The main caveat here is, if the CrucibleNFT art is the same on other chains as it is on Eth will this dilute it’s value on Ethereum? This is a hard question to answer, but I would lean towards yes, it would.
I like the idea that the main value proposition of mist on other chains is through the capture of the revenue streams generated on those other chains.
How interoperable mist should be between changes is the most challenging question by far in my opinion. Cross-chain communication management risk is quite high and will likely become of increasing importance in the future as larger amounts of capital are locked in bridges. There is also the huge risk of other chains just not being trustworthy. Do you really trust BNB chain’s set of validators to uphold the integrity of the network? What happens when Solana goes down again? Should the mist on Polygon really be as valuable as the mist on Ethereum? Is the network security of Avalanche on par with that of Ethereum? The risks associated with other chains will become risks of the LPs and token holders on Ethereum if interoperability is prioritized over security. Maybe the safest method is to go multi-chain with no cross-chain compatibility to start. Perhaps the solution is that each chain contains a separate instance of the mist token that is paired with a preexisting highly liquid cross-chain asset. This would allow LPs on other chains to receive mist for providing liquidity and if they wished to move chains they could do so by using the other asset component of their supplied liquidity. This significantly reduces the cross-chain risk of mist while incentivizing multi-chain liquidity providers.
Since Crucible is now entering onto being on its 3rd chain and Copper recently launched to its 4th, things on this front are moving fast and this topic is becoming more relevant than ever.
Would like to bring this conversation once again to the forefront of the discussions, don’t hold back to share your views, even if you think it might be controversial.