I would suggest that we look at the larger AMM’s and see if we can provide rewards for the highest liquidity/volume pools to bring that traffic to our platform. This will increase the liquidity and bring the trader fees to us.
Really the issue with all “governance” tokens is utility. 1inch token needs to have multiple streams of utility, and develop those streams quickly but effectively before other similar protocols roll out their impossibly creative token use-cases.
Just giving handouts to LP’s and what-not is awesome… …for 90% of those handouts, only because it is tradeable into another asset. In other words, I’m estimating that only 10% of 1inch’s users really want to use the token purely for governance/voting power within the protocol. So, how do we create value within an asset such as 1inch? Utility.
Maybe 1inch could partner with more digital asset projects? But, how? insert community input here
Or create a launch-pad and distribution protocol for brand new tokens/projects?
This is easy, since projects can already distribute their own smart-contract controlled token on 1inch just by creating the pools for their token. But, 1inch hodlers could use their tokens to vote on upcoming projects, maybe by providing liquidity pre-launch. LP’s participating during pre-launch could be rewarded in the new project’s token. Also, once 1inch performs a successful token launch, the protocol could require new projects to own a predetermined ratio of 1inch tokens to their new token. Would have to be based on value of each token and the ratio would need to coincide with the number of 1inch tokens LP’s have provided for the initial liquidity of the pool. 1inch could even create those pool contracts so that the value of the 1inch tokens deposited from the project’s team be frozen. Would also influence the team to find ways to make their token more valuable. ‘Anyone within crypto ever heard of a “freezer-burn” method for reducing the total supply of a token?’
Anybody down for some serious utility from the 1inch token?
Quality . Yes It’s like More Quality tokens will get listed in this way in 1inch far more easily inturn also increasing the demand of 1inch side by side if the Listed token team is supposed to hold more 1inch as a conserve or maybe as an insurance .
Burn . Yes Burning tokens can be effective but it must be done in such a way that should not only deflationary but also should be connected with something else as a usage etc. A proper deflationary mechanism functionality needed .
Maybe governance functions within 1inch could cost users a fee, kind of like how performing functions on Ethereum will incur gas fees. If governance is going to be the primary utility, there needs to not only be rewards, but further development into what variables can be governed by voting and maybe even pool-specific governance implementations. Maybe by giving everyone ‘x’ votes in which are fee-free. This would give users who want to purely yield farm for profit a side-effect. And maybe pure yield-farming would slow a bit? The number of fee free votes would also put a number out there in which allows an incentive for users to collect that amount of 1inch, and without even saying ‘minimum’, its just the way we think. And if a user feels strongly enough about having more votes to sway a variable in their favor, they still can, but with a minor fee. Just sayin’, right now, I feel like a kid in the candy store with all of these DeFi protocols giving out their version of candy. So, yield farmers are accumulating bags daily filling entire stores weekly, and mainly for monitary gains. You can only vote with it which means more handouts if shuffled around just right. These handouts need to incur a fee somewhere… You don’t want to give the majority of handouts to those just on here to game the system.
Another thing that could become an issue…
Users are voting to achieve what they would like to see happen within a pool. To clarify, an example:
Pool A is comprised of 2 stablecoins and the current fees are at 0.53%. If I use all votes at 0.01% as fees for the pool, lets say the fees go to 0.45%. Obviously, an LP would not want to collect 0.01% of trade fees, even between 2 stablecoins. So, I overcompensated my vote to get the fees closer to where I wanted them which was at 0.3%.
Correct me if I am wrong, the stakers of 1inch, not within the pools, vote on fees and other pool related variables on a global scale, but why?