You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Why you should vote for Proposal 206 and build a bridge to Binance
I don't think the DHF should fund market makers. I see it as subsidizing fees to whatever exchange the AMM is hosted on and subsidizing investment risk for the AMM funders. I feel that liquidity pools, like any other market maker, should be able to profit off of a market spread.
If there is pent up demand for HBD liquidity, then running an AMM for HBD should be one of the safer MMs to operate because a smart AMM can take advantage of HBD<->Hive conversions if HBD price goes out of whack on external exchanges.
As a side note: AMMs do involve risk for participants, as well as potential rewards, something that standard AMM literature tends to downplay, IMO, with talks of BS things like "impermanent loss". But overall market making tends to be profitable, as plenty of professional traders can tell you.
Out of curiosity, how you would compare subsidizing fees for exchanges to paying exchanges for listings, which seems to be something that many token developers feel adds value by enabling more liquidity, market access for more participants, as well as exposure?
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I can recognize some value when you are small and trying to become more visible and established. It seems to be generally in the category of marketing expenses IMV.
View more
Let's do that!
Can you make it?
HIVE:HBD Internal AMM (with order books still). The bots can arb between pool and orderbooks. This is the pair to start with in the internal market.