Over-the-counter (OTC) $GTON purchasing deals

:mega: There are many requests recently about OTC buy deals for $GTON for 150-500k$ deal sizes. We designed a special approach for it.
If u have OTC questions or know somebody who has, please contact me or @CryptoBNS in DM.”


People can’t get GTON from DEXes since the project is in early stage and there is not enough liquidity to buy without an incredible slippage. So, we have many request for OTC deals in DM.


I. We (Graviton-DAO) have Backers (3%) and Operation (14%) allocations - those allocations are using for MM operations on DEXes (and later it will be in CEXes).

II. All funds from DEXes/CEXes or OTC deals are coming into the DAO treasury multisig accounts and other smart contracts (not to the team wallets).

III. Core Contributors - Team allocation (20%) will start unlocking only after one year from the project start (May 2022 year), with the same unlocking formula as an EBs allocation. No team’s tokens will be sold on OTC deals before that.


There is an issue with direct OTC deals - without lockups. Why?

“Pathway protocol - the automated liquidity support program for GTON will bring an almost riskless strategy for whom who gonna speculate on GTON price fluctuations. The Graviton-DAO don’t need that and our focus must be on long-term oriented whales/holders”

So, we can only suggest an option to buy an allocation from an OTC smart contract for the fixed market price (from Band’s oracles) from the treasury with locked allocations and linear unlocks (like 10-20% per month). No discounts, no extra bonuses, no custody (via verified/audited OTC smart contract).




Based on the feedback from this proposal post we’ll suggest a parameters configurations for GTON-voting.


We have implemented smart contract for any EVM chains for such deals (Eth, Fantom, BSC, Matic, Avalanche, xDAI, Heco and etc). So, USDC/USDT/BUSD or another liquid assets can be accepted (wrapped native tokens as well).

code link (vmp sc - don’t use it now)

1 Like

Do we have actual need for extra capital to develop our protocol? Raising capital without actual need or valuation increase may not be a wise idea. given that we still have rich treasury left for future development. I support this proposal only if the deal has higher valuation or the purchasers can bring us strategic value such as investments from other protocols or foundation or VC that bring actual value. Otherwise, raising capital after we released relay swap for public use can get much more with the same proportion of GTON given out.

1 Like

Alex P | Graviton, [18 Aug 2021, 5:01:13 PM (18 Aug 2021, 5:01:46 PM)]:

awesome question :hugs:

please wait for the next proposal about: DAO-VC

Raccoon Chan 小浣熊, [18 Aug 2021, 5:01:50 PM (18 Aug 2021, 5:01:56 PM)]:

Great, looking forward to the proposal

Alex P | Graviton, [18 Aug 2021, 5:06:21 PM]:

the idea is simple:

people must buy LP of wrapped assets (or another #LOLT/GTON LPs) by one click as an investment products (:candy:candies - from the “candies shop”). We don’t have to ask them to make all operations by themselves (buy coin 1/buy coin 2/add liquidity/wrapp asset from chian 1 to 2/stake lp).

but, we can do it on the backend/onchain side, which means we’ll (our dao/treasury) have positions in such assets too.

if we have such positions we have to invest into the projects - so we are VC/Hedge Fund after that

Alex P | Graviton, [18 Aug 2021, 5:06:31 PM]:

it’s just a teaser…

Alex P | Graviton, [18 Aug 2021, 5:07:23 PM (18 Aug 2021, 5:07:32 PM)]:

“effortless #multichain DeFi experience” sirs

I think something broke in this reply…

Anyways, I think I agree with Raccoon on this. If there is no evident advantages to making these deals for the project, I think making these deals at this stage might result in some losses.

I am not certain about this, but I think the price of graviton, given the number of tokens in circulation, is highly undervalued. As such, if somebody wants to buy tokens for $500 000, it is to be expected that there is a high slippage. Selling a lot of tokens at a fixed price, while the price is undervalued due to it being still a relatively unknown project, seems like a loss of money for the treasury, especially if there is no need to make these OTC deals.

I am aware I’m changing the definition of ‘slippage’ from ‘price change due to low liquidity’ to ‘price change due low liquidity caused by undervalue of the token’.

Again, I might be wrong about my interpretation here, but I think I’m not.

After all, price changes due to increasing liquidity is basically ‘slippage’. It is simply not experienced by a single trade because most of the time trades are but a fraction of the liquidity present within the DEX. As such, the ‘slippage’ happens between trades.

As GTON is undervalued at this point, and still suffers from low liquidity, trades of 500 000 will cause a hard shift in value, experienced as ‘slippage’.

Here’s what I suggest, let GTON grow organically for a month or two extra, and I am sure the liquidity problem will be solved without the need of special deals for OTC.

If there are big advantages to be gained, we could come to an agreement. But overall it seems like a bad idea to me.

1 Like

Actually, i’m not so sure here. I see a clear problem that we currently have and this is liquidity. For being honest, i’m not sure how this could be solved without having new money flowing in.

That being said, i would love to see the money flowing in via the OTC deals, to be used as liquidty.

Of course, @Jim is right, the token is probably undervalued currently, and thus selling it at a fixed price is sort of a discount that we probably not want and that might lead to selling pressure on our way up. So maybe it would be good to adjust the price, e.g., the middle of the current price and the price including slippage. Something like that…


1 Like

There of course is the problem with the liquidity provisions right now, but this should be solved soon as we start LP farming.

If anything, I would wait at least a month to do any OTC deals as long as the project has not sorted out its LP farms and has no amazing partnerships left to announce.

We need deeper liquidity across the amm dexs first. For that we need to launch LP farming. For that we need release of EB tokens since its mostly EBs that have the great amount of GTON. Ofc release of EB tokens into illiquid gton market may cause price to crash too.

Either team provides liquidity themselves using treasury and then slowly release EB to allow for organic market growth or we can go ahead at this stage and have deeper pockets fund liquidity across the dexs (price has a nice organic pump right now … may be favorable)

1 Like

Maybe team adds liquidity first and allow the current market demand to buy as much as liquidity/slippage will allow for organic price growth. Then start releasing EB slowly too. Non hodlers will either provide liq to farm or sell their gton into pools to replenish or increase gton supply in market.
OTC deals can then de done later whenever they may be needed eg liquidity issues persisting.

If OTC needed earlier then can we have a more complex OTC counter in which the greater the dollar amounts after some set amounts, the higher the price impact. So that we dont sell too much excess GTON at a low price at this early stage. [Organic slippage at higher liquidity]
Im sure aleksei can produce ‘moonfactor VC supply curve’ for GTON too as with NSBT lol

I’m not really sure if we should sell at market price. Maybe we can introduce a premium depending on the size of the OTC deal? Moreover, the price should also be aligned with the pathway curve and unlocking events to reduce sell pressure.

OTC is the primitive P2P Exchange yet. How about the relationship between SM with pathway work on in further? or this way of OTC is the add-on budget for DAO treasury by re-distributing % of tokenomics.

this way can be manage whale. i think it is the best way to control price also. However, we should to reduce vesting per time.


What are the Graviton’s team thoughts and yours Alex on OTC deals? I understand the proposal is there to address the burdening inquiries, but what are your thoughts?

I do agree with Raccoon’s point on raising capital without need simply to raise capital may not be wise, but if liquidity is a pressing need to invest in other projects like you articulated I’m all for whatever the vision of the team sees best as it relay’s to building of the product.

I am undecided to be honest. On the one hand side, we need a well filled treasury, to being able to proceed with pathway and also in order to be able to provide liquidity.
On the other hand this means that more tokens will be available at the market and that it will be potentially more selling pressure.

I think we should wait with this until the the EB tokens are free to be claimed and after we have started with proper incentives for LPing. This could actually help already to generate enough liquidity that it is possible to buy a 150k position with the price doubling.

Alternatively, we could also find a way to make the locked EB stakes movable - this would allow the still to be claimed part to be transferred to another user - some EBs might be tempted to sell there stake under such a scenario (not me though ;-)).

Can we invite some market makers as strategic investors? PieDAO did similar stuff with Wintermute VC (a market maker) which by doing fewer OTC deals, we can solve the liquidity problem and allow bulk investors to buy larger size of $GTON?


I’m with most of you guys. I dont see the point in selling tokens now only to satisfy whales demand. If liquidity is really an issue, then maybe go with a market maker. But I would also await LP farming and see how the liquidity develops with LP farming running. I would be more than happy to use all my EB allocation for LPing.

1 Like

As mentioned already in this thread, there are multiple good reasons to provide options for long time investors that provide specific benefits that I did not think about earlier.

It seems that the overall feeling agrees that we want to wait at least a little bit to see how the project moves once we are past the maintenance phase for LP farming and relay swaps.

@alexp Your thoughts?

temporary solved by:

but we need treasury OTC deals as well with SPIs, big VCs and Market Makers
so current proposal will be adjusted later