This is interesting!
1 Like
You probably meant POL? Was wondering about that one myself 
2 Likes
I feel the timing of this proposal is wrong. If there truly was an issue with $CLOUD liquidity wouldnât it be reflected in current prices? If an institution wants to buy in size, let them drive up the price. Theyâre worried about <6% slippage when the price is under <0.12??? Are u kidding? I actually feel quite triggered reading this as somebody who purchased during the alpha vault.
7 Likes
Hi everyone, just a general feedback: imho all proposals concerning CLOUD should always include the current token breakdown â circulating, reserves, team, etc. and an indication of where the proposed CLOUD would be coming from.
Thanks đ«¶đ»,
L.
6 Likes
Well, donât let the anger CLOUD your judgement. I also bought from the Alpha Vault at $0.3, but thatâs not whatâs being discussed here. You may or may not like the proposal, and this is what this thread is for: to express our opinion about setting up LPs with liquidity providers. Arguing that a 5.6% slippage is OK is not only besides the point, but also totally wrong.
4 Likes
Am I misunderstanding whatâs happening? Please share if Iâm missing the point. Thanks.
3 Likes
I go with Option 2 because decentralization is the goal, which means having CLOUD in 2 pools is better than just one
1 Like
I think investing into the various financial platforms not only bring the inherent benefits of liquidity, it will advertise $CLOUD and higher liquidity makes it more enticing.
However i agree that theres no âenoughâ amount. The benefits should outweigh disadvantage. Also, we could consider inf-cloud too
2 Likes
So POL is Protocol Owned Liquidity:
Itâs essentially a pool of assets that the Community DAO owns with respect to their own asset onchain - itâs a decentralized finance (DeFi) innovation in which protocols actively own and manage their liquidity instead of relying solely on external liquidity providers (LPs) .
In the past, the success of any project in DeFi relies on their POL - it allows for the project to self-sustain itself and utilise the funds accrued from LPâing (in this case CLOUD/USDC) - allowing two things:
1. Revenue Generation:
With the CLOUD in Option 1 & Option 2, Sanctum allows itself the ability to sell further CLOUD into cash between 0.11 - 0.60 (assuming that post- Cloud2 Proposal that CLOUD price is HIGHER) - being in range, any fees accrued in the LP is owned and could be used as buybacks or as LP buffer and brings cashflow from DeFi into the Treasury.
2. Stabilisation of Delta ($):
Having POL (when done correctly) - would allow for the funds to be used as a way to stabilise (in this case reduce slippage) of price volatility for the CLOUD token.
5 Likes
Yes! Sorry for the mistype 
2 Likes
Was wondering if it was possible for the staked CLOUD to be used as LP? Or 2 staking option.
One normal with the asr
And one with asr+LP reward (with its risks)
2 Likes
-
Option 1 - Meteora DLMM Pool:
-
Pros: This approach seems tailored towards both immediate liquidity enhancement and incentivizing long-term liquidity provision. The use of a Dynamic Liquidity Market Maker (DLMM) pool aims at maintaining liquidity across a broad price range, which could mitigate large price impacts from significant trades. The long-term incentives might encourage sustained liquidity, potentially leading to a more stable market environment for CLOUD.
-
Cons: If the market does not respond positively to the incentives or if the price of CLOUD does not move as anticipated, the allocation might not yield the desired liquidity depth. Thereâs also the risk of over-rewarding liquidity providers, which could lead to inefficient capital use if not managed properly.
-
-
Option 2 - Combined Meteora and HawkFi Strategy:
-
Pros: This option provides a dual strategy where wide-range liquidity reduces high slippage over broader price movements, while HawkFiâs tight-range auto rebalancing focuses on market price stability. This could be seen as a more flexible approach, potentially offering better responsiveness to market conditions.
-
Cons: Managing two different strategies might complicate the oversight and could potentially lead to inefficiencies or misallocations if not carefully monitored. The split strategy might also dilute the focus or effectiveness of liquidity incentives.
-
Considerations:
-
Community Engagement: The proposalâs approach to community involvement is commendable. Engaging the community not only in voting but in the drafting phase can lead to better-informed decisions that reflect broader stakeholder interests.
-
Risk of Token Dilution: Deploying a significant amount of CLOUD could potentially lead to inflation of the token supply if not matched by corresponding growth or utility in the ecosystem. The community should consider if the liquidity boost is justified by expected growth or if it might just lead to temporary market manipulation.
-
Success Metrics: Clearly defining what success looks like (e.g., reduced price impact to below a certain threshold, increased trading volume, higher number of active LPs) will be crucial. This should be tied to specific, measurable outcomes rather than just the deployment of tokens.
-
Alternative Approaches: The mention of a third option or doing nothing at all opens the floor for creative solutions or perhaps the realization that current liquidity might suffice for the current stage of CLOUDâs lifecycle.
TLDR: Engaging in this kind of community-driven decision-making process is a positive step. However, the community should weigh the immediate benefits of increased liquidity against long-term implications on token value and ecosystem health. The choice between Option 1 and Option 2, or potentially a new approach, should carefully balance between immediate market needs and sustainable growth.
2 Likes
I am NOT comfortable voting yes to either option 1 or 2 for a few reasons (I vote for option 3 - and my proposal is that we need more information before we can make a proper decision on a topic like this. I feel its too early for this proposal)
First off, I would like to say I am not an expert in LP or web3 - also wanted to point out that numbers in option 2 do not add up to 10M (yes its 11M but just sayin lol)
I do not like passing either option 1 or 2 to appease firms. They could always DCA in if they really see the value in CLOUD just like the rest of us. They could have bought in past months, or get some from the vault, etcâŠReducing price impact NOW also feels unfair for community members who have held since TGE
There is currently 26.4M CLOUD in the pool right now on Meteora (just an observation)
Providing incentives also adds sell pressure. Even though 2-3M is a small % of 180M (current circulating supply) and its over 18 monthsâŠstill sell pressure nonetheless (assuming most people are jeeters these days)
The last line of the post: âevery CLOUD is precious, and should not be frivolously spentâŠâ - I think Sanctum should do something similar to Jupiter Exchange, where they did an audit to let the community know where all of their tokens are. Transparency is paramount. I know this is also a big ask because no other project (to my knowledge) besides Jupiter has done something like thisâŠ.in factâŠ.they did it twice!
In regards to CLOUDâŠwe know the following:
-1 billion CLOUD total supply
-180M currently in circulation
-30M CLOUD to be distributed in ASR over the next 6 monthsâŠso thatâll bring us to 210M CLOUD in circulation after 6 months
Could we, as a community, get more information such as:
-what is the total out of the 1B CLOUD allocated to the community?
-how much is allocated to the team, vesting time if any?
-where is the 10M coming from for option 1/2âŠis it all from the community? Team? 50/50?
I feel that we cannot make an informed decision as a community without knowing this information. And to add, I think the explanation of this proposal is way too complicated and needs to be done in a ELI5 (explain it like Iâm a 5 year old) manner so that those who have no less knowledge about LP/liquidity can at least make some kind of informed decision instead of blindly voting yes/no
I look forward to seeing all of the replies here and what the team has to say over the following days!
Thanks for reading this looong reply 
7 Likes
You mean price impact not slippage.
2 Likes
This is quite a good suggestion you have!
The JUP Audit actually helped provide token holder understanding of where things are right now - so having a CLOUD Audit would be great.
Might want to add to that - whether MMs that currently are LPing onchain (the current $3.8m liq. on DEX) qualify for the incentive mechanism (I donât think they should?)
6 Likes
Meteora already provides incentives for LPing in the way that fees are paid out in usdc and cloud
So I donât really see the need for additional incentives from Sanctumâs end
2 Likes
Oh that is quite unfortunate for HawkfiâŠ
For my exxperience, I have yet had issues with them, just dust amounts left unrecoverable from my foray into auto-LPingâŠ
Maybe @DeFIDeRekt could help in any way in explaining whether Hawkfi is better option vs. Orca vs. Meteora et. al.
Iâd LOVE me another KMNO integration, so Iâd love to see another addition if we can partner with KMNO again like the CLOUD-INF pool that @katexbt liked in the pastâŠ
3 Likes
They can DCA in to a position - I donât think its fair to change it up now that theyâre realizing the value of cloudâŠ.when the rest of us werenât afforded this (low slippage on size) when we bought.
4 Likes
I wouldnât deploy high liquidity at low prices, they missed TGE too bad, if people wanted to sell Cloud cheaper there would be sell orders down here. This would make fee earning for Defi LProviders more scarce and IL worse for everyone else regardless of short term farm rewards which are just inflation. It seems a conflict of interest to do tge 2.0 for buyers just so they can avoid having a natural impact on price by buying. Ultimately big buyers see the value and are trying to get a discount when in the end if they are in too much profit they immediately go from a support to a risk. Why monopolize governance cheaper or do anything cheaper while its already undervalued.
If you want to sell gold at a discount just wack 20M Cloud in one bin/lp sell order at 11cents. If their complaint is its difficult to buy alot of Cloud this cheap, show me the issue⊠its common sense, ask the community if they want to hand over their Cloud to some whales on mass at these prices, so the whales can splash around in the kiddy pool.
With the voting system already feeling anti community pro trader. Now the first incentivised vote being for the team to add competative liquidity cheaper than the community wants to sell for ontop of everyone. Why bother asking just do off chain deal to revenue raise and hand over supply, its a paradoxical vote, because market doesnât want to sell a this price so buyers impact is because thereâs limited cheap orders⊠so you put up a pseudo proposal as we know nobody will sell Cloud this cheap, so whoâs voting No then??? We will sell Cloud at this price to support not selling Cloud at this price??? Cool story, this proposal blows ass just do a private deal to these ppl who are used to getting a discount on their tax bill too, because they have more money and want more money, and governance bodies look up to them or some shid.
If they want to buy, why are they talking about it, thereâs only so much cheap Cloud, let the free market have them miss out for waiting and fading and sitting around hoping we become one of those carpet or kitchenware shops with the forever bargain clearance on at wholesale prices.
Cloud is already at a far greater discount than 6%. Know your worth and I vote not to have this as the first rigged af vote.
9 Likes