Make ICOs for $GTON related tokens like $CANDY, $OGSWAP, etc

Idea to guarantee a fair launch of $GTON ecosystem tokens which also introduces a new use-case for $GTON.

  1. allocate a certain amount of $CANDY tokens for an ICO where we raise funds in $GTON only
  2. raised $GTON determines market cap and initial LP balance and will be paired with the same amount of $CANDY as were reserved for point 1

the only “issue” is that for 1 and 2 the same amount of $CANDY tokens would need to be reserved respectively and Tokenomics would be changed slightly that way, but I don’t really see an issue here.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

so let’s say $CANDY total supply is 10 million

  1. we take 10% (1 million tokens) and make an ICO for $CANDY, funds raised are in $GTON.
  2. let’s say we raised 100k $GTON that would mean 1 million candy = 100k $GTON, so the market cap of $CANDY is 1 million $GTON
  3. the 100k $GTON raised will be used to set up initial liquidity on the $CANDY/$GTON pair. The amount of $CANDY in the pool will be 10% like in step 1, so 100k $GTON along with 1 million $CANDY tokens
  4. the other 80% of $CANDY tokens will be used for whatever the initial plan was.

of course the percentage of $CANDY in step 1 and 2 could be tweaked, I just used 10% as an example

-fair launch, everyone has the same chance to get in at the same initial price
-no $GTON from the treasury used for initial liquidity. No front running. People dumping their $CANDY after initial LP setup are guaranteed to sell at a loss, so no big dumps after LP set up
-$GTON use case
-probably takes some $GTON off the market that would have been otherwise dumped on the USD pairs. Maybe even makes some people buy more $GTON to get into the ICO
-no complaints from people about bots front-running and dumping on them

Additionally a small percentage of the new tokens (like 5%) could be airdropped to $GTON stakers

2 Likes

The only Issue I see here is that step 1 could not raise enough $GTON and so liquidity would be all messed up and initial price is too low, but we could determine a minimum amount of GTON (and therefor $CANDY price) needed for the ICO and if that amount is not met, the treasury steps in and purchases the rest of the tokens in the ICO to which helps set up initial liquidity at a guaranteed minimum (whatever weight was planned all along anyway)

2 Likes

-fair launch, everyone has the same chance to get in at the same initial price
-no $GTON from the treasury used for initial liquidity. No front running. People dumping their $CANDY after initial LP setup are guaranteed to sell at a loss, so no big dumps after LP set up

I don’t think this is necessarily true. ICO can both result in overvalued and undervalued prices, influenced by factors such as FOMO or outreach.

Personally, I prefer token launches without ICO. Tokens are therefore created from staking rewards. To exemplify, the launch of $CANDY could achieved through the use of several liquidity pools:

  • Staking pools (GTON/BTC/ETH)
  • GTON paired liquidity pools (GTON-X, GTON-Y)
  • Candy paired liquidity pools (CANDY-X, CANDY-Y)

To my best knowledge, Spell/MIM, among other projects, have set-up the launch of their tokens like this. (Well actually, there was an initial token launch that was immediately sold out (i.e. underpriced) and resulted in one person becoming a millionaire overnight.). Generally, the initial price will taper of in the first months, as the very first tokens will sell at a higher prices as people buy $CANDY to pair it with other assets as these pool have relatively high rewards. As $CANDY won’t have as much utility at the start (I think), a selling pressure is observed. This is a good moment to accumulate and before long, as $CANDY grows together with it’s utility, prices start jumping.

Overall I think this is a good set-up because it ensures a healthy and organic growth of volume and liquidity.

1 Like