Apologies if this is the incorrect category for this, but as the conversation on CLOUD-2 proposal gave birth to this idea, I figured I’d introduce it here:
I was pushed to look more into m3m3 mechanics and how it could possibly be played with or made to contribute to the current proposal regarding Liquidity Provision beyond the base “Stake x, get rewards from whatever locked LP exists.”
Instead, I began to think of it as: imagine we could make it “Stake LP, and not only get your own rewards but also get rewarded from Sanctum incentives” or something like that-
When I said “it could make LP farmers/mercenary think longer term”, it’s because nobody wants their LP going out of range and resulting in no longer gaining their natural fees right? And to lock it means that the LP position wouldn’t be adjustable for a good 30 days (or for however long the lock would be for). So such an implementation could/would push people who want to be involved in that system to potentially change their behavior and broaden their liquidity provision ranges –
This theoretically could result in Sanctum not getting as focused concentrated liquidity around our current price (where we don’t want to stay), but still gain overall however much liquidity the participants are willing to lock in, potentially liquidity that spans an entire range or at least a large price range. It’s not necessarily an optimal way to LP, but would provide minimal dampening to price movement while still deepening the overall liquidity pool of $CLOUD.
Of course, I’m not a dev. So I’m not even particularly sure if this could/has already been done on Solana. But I would love to hear what the community thinks of this idea / try to further my understanding of LPs in case I got any assumptions incorrect.
Why not set up an AMA session with someone in Meteora to explain the potential benefits for the project if we utilize M3M3 platform for $Cloud.
There are tons of people thst are available to discuss.
Im sure we can set something up before the Vote is scheduled to happen. Would the Mods or Devs in here want to initiate, or I can try to get the ball rolling and try to set something up?
As far as i know it can be done and a existing token can integrate the M3M3 staking platform
but
As the name implies and the projects already using the m3m3 platform, its associated with memecoins, not sure we really want that tag associated directly with sanctum/cloud
From my brief experiance with it the returns unless you have a really large ammount staked are negiable, and usually only cover a set ammount of stakers (rewards for m3m3 are top 999 and you currently need circa 80000 staked to make the requirement)
It would be in competition with our own Staking/ASR, so could possibily not be that attractive to holders
thats coming from a massive meteora supporter, idea of m3m3 is great and really sound, personally i’m not sure the reality works for the average holder
I think there are many ways to play it. And top 1,000 stakers get rewarded with a portion of fees. And yes it creates constant buying pressure to stay on the top of the leaderboard to keep getting rewards. Does that automatically create buy pressure? Possibly…
Also, lets not forget, people are discussing buy backs, instead of buy backs, rewards are distibuted to top holders and allowing them to stake more.
I was curious (as I’m not as familiar with the M3M3 system), but was basically thinking if the parameters can be changed such that it’s not just the top 999 rewarded, but rather:
all locked stakers get:
not only 1) the fees they generate (as they should)
but also 2) split of the fees generated by Sanctum’s injection of $CLOUD into liquidity (as an extension of CLOUD-02)
3) possible future incentives as decided by $CLOUD governance / Sanctum
It may be an option 2 to people who want to stake but don’t want full on exposure to $CLOUD for risk management or other reasons. I understand that pure token staking isn’t for everyone, so maybe the potential incentives could help to adjust behavior. Meow
Right now the M3M3 Platform is going through some community upgrades. I think what your proposing is possible, but im no expert. So I think we should make a plan to reward long term holders, and then approach them in a few months, probably in the Summer.
LP locking is something we don’t see on Solana but is fairly common on EVM chains like Optimism and Sonic (previously Fantom).
It’s a great idea as you reward for people committing liquidity for a set period of time.
I don’t much like M3M3 as I see it as value-less staking. There’s no benefit to single side staking a token apart from not being able to sell it. If you’re going to stake then it should do something useful e.g., an LST, LP etc…
But…
You can already do rewarded LP staking with a farm. It’s just not locked is all.
Now technically a position in an LP is a token. Least that’s how most LP are represented in your wallets. So you could use something like Streamflow locks (Token Vesting | Streamflow) or staking (Token Vesting | Streamflow) to offer a reward for locking that LP token and offer greater rewards for locking it for longer (you’d have to maybe do this via the API possibly).
The most important question is: Should you do this?
What benefit to Sanctum would this give?
CLOUD is not struggling for liquidity as far as I can see so why would you spend CLOUD on securing liquidity?
Positive to lock ups with benefits but atm i don´t think m3m3 is something we want to be associated with, because if the current sad situation… Just using gut feeling I think the asr model has until now proven more ´stickiness´rather than LP with incetives .
The lock (at least in my theory) is really what makes the difference, as normal incentivized LPing is, as we’ve discussed in CLOUD-002 discussion, generally mercenary and not sticky. It makes people think twice about locking their LP, what kind of position they want to lock in (as it can’t be adjusted say, halfway through), etc.
Good point on the Streamflow use - that’s definitely another route to consider regarding locking the LP token and rewarding lockers only for specific amounts of time.
As for replying to closing questions:
Should you do this? - That’s not exactly a question for me, but rather for each and every person who wants to give this locking system a consideration if it’s ever implemented.
What benefit to Sanctum would this give? - With the initial proposition CLOUD-002, it was revealed there are bigger players looking for more liquidity in order to facilitate less price action. While the benefit of bigger players has been and will continue to be debated, having a deeper $CLOUD liquidity can potentially bring more eyes/potential buyers.
CLOUD is not struggling for liquidity as far as I can see so why would you spend CLOUD on securing liquidity?– Ironically, I agree. However, this idea proposal is a little bit of an extension on our conversation held on the original CLOUD-002 proposition, so apologies for not clarifying that connection. CLOUD-002 looks for Sanctum to deploy $CLOUD as additional liquidity-- I think if it could be more community-centric, it would allow for less pressure on the Sanctum team to provide this liquidity, as well as allow an additional choice/avenue for supporters to show up for Sanctum.
