Occam’s Proposal for Graviton

Occam’s Proposal for Graviton

Please note that this proposal is not related to Cardano’s Occam.fi in any way.

“Keep it simple, stupid”

  • The KISS Principle.

“Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

  • William of Ockham

Based on months of research & development, establishing partnerships and growing the community, we have noticed that operational processes, release pipelines and maintenance are becoming more and more complex. Primarily, the complexity lies in the necessity to integrate multiple chains at the same time (even non-EVM ones) while trying to keep the overall system decentralized and scalable. In other words, multichain is a huge engineering challenge and it needs to be decomposed and broken down into modules to be tackled effectively. To handle this complexity, we are gradually moving from our original approach to engineering, creating experimental architectures towards reducing the dependency on legacy concepts and tech.

The core idea of Graviton remains the same:

Graviton is a Multichain #DeFi liquidity booster that uses Reflection Farming

This means that Graviton is designed to boost organic liquidity for different assets on different chains via incentives coming from its farming allocations. The less liquidity assets have on different chains, the more fundamental value Graviton can bring to those assets and their holders, users, traders, investors etc. This fact was the reason for the original focus being directed towards wrapped assets bridged from one chain to another. However, the current stage of our market helps to reevaluate which use cases can see benefit from Graviton (we initially called them #LOLT - lack of liquidity assets):

1 - wrapped assets

2 - new projects

3 - CEX tokens

4 - CEX-only coins (most of 2017/2019 projects)

5 - new chains

6 - fractionalized NFTs or tokenized NFT collections

7 - vaults, LPs, synthetic (mirrored) assets

Although all of the aforementioned categories of cases are #LOLT, and the liquidity of assets mentioned there can easily be boosted across all chains, this list is not in any way complete and it seems likely that more #LOLT cases on the market can be found later. It is crucial for the solution to be scalable for ANY token on any chain and ideally be fully permissionless, for it to be able to provide value to #LOLT tokens.

Reflection Farming (RF)

At the basic level, RF is a combination of two cryptoeconomic design primitives: 1 - staking and 2 - farming. Staking can be seen as farming for a virtual AMM pool with the same asset placed on both side, like GTON/GTON. The more GTON in staking, the more rewards are sent to this pool participants per a certain time period. Thus, RF can be represented as TOKEN/GTON staking where rewards are being sent to the pool in the proportion of how many GTON is locked in the LP. This approach is self-sustainable and creates a positive feedback loop for LP providers and farmers: when the TOKEN’s price is growing, the increase of GTON in the pool leads to more rewards for LP farming. This is also pushing GTON’s price up due to arbitrageurs buying it from the market to arbitrage with the TOKEN. On the other hand, when the TOKEN is losing valuation, there are less GTON rewards, and therefore fewer farmers begin to choose this pool.

To sum up, we are focusing on Reflection Farming as a product solution and Relay Liquidity as GTON’s main utility.

Simplicity brings effectiveness

To make Reflection Farming fast and secure, we have to reduce the level of unnecessary complexity. The key aspects that need simplification are:

1 - Early Birds allocation & unlock schedule: this can be achieved by instantly making the allocation fully claimable. A strong advantage of unlocking EB is that it allows the new tokens of the Graviton ecosystem (Candyshop and OGSwap) to become available in the form of IDO to GTON. After the complete unlock, token holders have the opportunity to buy allocations in these tokens themselves. For instance, during the IDO, $CANDY will be released into an AMM pool with GTON – $CANDY/$GTON, meaning that the only way to buy it is to exchange $GTON to $CANDY.

2 - Governance Staking & Voting: Staking has to be kept only as a part of the token economy, and governance shall be moved to off-chain DAO voting powered by Snapshot.

The locked EB allocations cannot be handled for such votings via Snapshot, therefore the unlock is necessary.

3 - Oracles for Multichain Farming: re-engineering the oracles for farming and relay swaps to utilize DONs (decentralized oracle networks) provided by Chainlink.

Liquidity is the key thing

For the project to be successful, its founders have to focus on the liquidity of its coin. At this point, as noticed by some of our community members, GTON lacks liquidity. This needs to change in order to fully realize the initial proposal that states that funds collected into the treasury should be used mostly for liquidity provision.

The core idea that is being put forward in this proposal is to start focusing on GROWING liquidity. The scheme is simple: use the stablecoins from the treasury to convert them into native tokens and most liquid coins on different chains, and finally pair those as liquidity to the GTON. Pairing GTON to ETH/BTC/FTM/BNB and other DeFi “blue chips” will launch an organic market-making activity for GTON and reveal a range of new opportunities for it as a Relay Token across multiple chains. The volatility inherent to these assets creates the necessary dynamics required for arbitrage and trading opportunities, thus supporting the activity around GTON. The need to open up the circulating supply coincides with the bullish market sentiment, and therefore GTON’s volumes and liquidity, while being put against volatile assets, will be naturally stimulated by market forces.

Options for liquidity

  1. Spend 80% of the stablecoins in the Treasury to purchase native tokens and the most liquid coins, and 20% to purchase stablecoins
  2. Spend 50% of the stablecoins in the Treasury to purchase native tokens and the most liquid coins, and 50% to purchase stablecoins
  3. Deny proposal

Hi all. I appreciate the time and thought the team has put into Occam’s Proposal, but I think it is not full thought out and it is unfair to vote on it given the current governance model. I have outlined some reasons why below. Sorry for my English.

I am against the Occam’s proposal for 3 main reasons:

Releasing EB tokens will dump the price as in the past.

This won’t boost liquidity.

EB holders who want to sell will sell before they can use their tokens to vote in governance.

How Early Birds are Punished

This proposal punishing early bird holders who didn’t dump, and those who bought the dip. We were promised partnerships, wrapped assets, boosted liquidity LP farming pools, relay swaps all to boost the price and give our GTON more value. Plus achievements. I assume these things, or some of them, are still happening. However, it is at the expense of hodlers who believed this would happen with their funds unlocking slowly to avoid a dump—as had been promised.

I understand and agree with the team’s vision, but to say, “Okay, investors, we are going to run at a loss below EB price indefinitely, is that okay with you?” doesn’t add up. And it does not represent a good relationship with the EB investors who are incentivized to sell.

Why Releasing all Early Bird $GTON at Once Won’t Boost Liquidity

The partnerships will be where the liquidity comes from: boosted pools. Getting more $GTON on the market (regardless of what to do with treasury funds) will only make the price go down, it will not add more liquidity. It is dilution. For example, if 100 $GTON is now $365, and the rest of EB funds open and the token dumps, then 200 $GTON will now equal $365. There is not ‘more’ liquidity because of this. There is only sell pressure.

The devs have suggested that EB holders can sell their tokens for bigger chip tokens on big chains to put into $GTON pools. But these pools don’t yet exist, and with half the number of tokens available they can do the same thing.

If you are expecting a dump, you can’t vote

Tokens for this proposal are a risk to vote with. I understand this is part of the proposal, getting rid of early bird governance.

However, if I want to vote against the current proposal because I think GTON price will dump I can either a) vote against the proposal, and risk losing and facing a price dump before I can sell or b) sell now, without a chance to voice my opinion.

Therefore if you predict a dump if occam’s proposal is accepted and want to vote against it, you put yourself at risk of a dump if the proposal happens. If you think you’re in the minority and it will pass, the logical thing (and what it seems holders have been doing) is to sell now and not even vote.

The Price Has Dumped Before

In the past, when early birds that had been farmed were fully unlocked, we saw a quick and significant dump in price, one that has never recovered. Likewise, EB have been waiting for achievements that would come with $GTON prizes, but now it seems like they are getting nothing.

If we want to increase liquidity and concentrate on high liquidity relay swaps with native chain tokens, then we should do just that. But there is no reason to unlock the $GTON to do so. It will only decrease the price of the token and despite ‘news’ we know price actions is related to fomo and scarcity. By keeping the price high and raising it quickly we will attract more media attention.

Perhaps most importantly, as we near the price that EBs paid for their tokens, there is the possibility of coming out in the red.

Those who were scared and did not have diamond hands can buy back in at a discount, and those who held, believed, and promoted the community will be punished.

I believe the project will still do what it promised and in the long run it will make money. But some of us put in a lot of EB money and have been buying the dip believing that every 1 $GTON we bought will eventually be worth $50-$100, but we’d like to recoup our original investment, at least, first, in case we are wrong.

An Alternative? Treasury Tokens OK

I am for using the treasury to buy native tokens to make adoption and liquidity go faster. But there is no reason to release all the Early Bird GTON now in my view. The sell pressure will be enormous as EB holders will race to sell their tokens so that they break even as we are close to the early bird token price now. They can always buy back in when the real bottom hits at a discount. I do not see sound logic in why the team believe all EB tokens should be released at once. Maybe eliminating early birds would be easier to go with development further, but it is not in the interest of EB holders. In a few months, the rest of the tokens will be released anyway, and by this time there may be more utility, more knowledge of the ecosystem, OG swap and more, many more reasons for the price to increase.

(and as others have pointed out, we want to cash in on the bull run before it ends!)

Pragmatically, in my opinion, right now, the wise thing to do would be to sell, wait for a price at or below the EB original price, and buy back in. This protects the EB investment with the possibility to stay involved. At the very least, my bottom line is that I don’t want to lose money. Of course I believe the price will bounce back, but I could be wrong, and there is still no reason not to swing trade if the main motivator is profit (and let’s face it, for investments, it is usually this). This is how the market acts.

I know the devs are cool, the market is stupid, it doesn’t know.

The devs have been extremely transparent, reliable and helpful, and I do not believe there is any purposeful manipulation. Nonetheless, I think they are making a mistake. Maybe instead EB could stay locked and the treasury could be used to buy native tokens.


nobody has commented here and voting is open so I’ll make one quick point:
tl;dr the tokenomics of this don’t make any sense.
The options in the vote is about how to use treasury funds, nothing about release EB tokens, feels like this was not decided by community.

1 Like

Hi, I also appreciate the time and thought the team has put into Occam’s Proposal. I am convinced the team can come up with a better proposal. Appreciate your (georgeclinton) critics and explanation. Supprised not to see any reaction since a week.

Voted against the proposal.

Graviton has one of the best Dev teams out in the space, but it would be nothing without Early Backers - Diamond Hands.

Sending all my love towards Alex and the great teams behind, keep up the good work!

  • Comment towards the whole graviton community - Get involved in forum discussions, take your time for it and start active voting.
1 Like

Thanks for responding! I also agree that the team is legit, I wouldn’t be here otherwise. When they had that phishing attack they replaced the lost funds right away in full-- a demonstration of their comittment.

Still, it seems like separating the EB and treasury parts of the Occam’s Proposal into two proposals might be a good compromise if Occam’s doesn’t pass.

Yeah I voted against it as well, but didn’t think voicing my opinion really mattered anymore in the forum since the vote is line already.

well then we hope this somehow brings VC s I guess