Withdrawal Limits Strategy

percentage approach takes more time for dev and test unfortunately, since atm smart contracts has limits by absolute amnt of GTON

same with weekly limits

the current system designed with daily limits, so this takes time for dev and test as well

let also consider this approach as an addition to the current proposal:

Well, at the end of the day, at some point tokens need to be released. At this point some will dump, and others will continue to hodl. My guess is that the longer we wait with token releases, the bigger the dump will get, basically for three reasons:

  1. The later we release tokens, the more tokens are released.
  2. The later we release, the more users will want to dump.
  3. If the partnership machine works as currently, the price will be higher the later we release.

That having said, i assume a sooner release is better for harming the price less. Especially in a situation where we have momentum, i could imagine that the outcome is not so bad. In addition, if we could offer EBs that want to sell an OTC possibility, that should help a lot.

2 Likes

I really like the OTC swap option for larger EB positions. It allows larger holders to sell their positions without dumping on market. Plus it will transfer the vested EB position to new holders. Hence they will have funds locked in same proportion as EB (rather than them having bought from market and having large amounts of gton available to dump whenever they choose)
Its win for both larger sellers and buyers as they avoid liquidity and slippage issues and its a win for recent holders who have bought already as this will reduce the market volatility.

(im assuming the NFT swap deal allows unreleased gton positions to be transferred too. Saw aleksei post something like this somewhere)

1 Like

Guys, first things first: thank you all so much for your support with kick starting and building Graviton so far.

I know that not having claims according to the proposed schedule wasn’t a DAO-based vote. This decision was made by the team for technical / security reasons and other factors which brought us to some delay (market correction, COVID cases in the core team, tech issues with multichain development). I, as the project lead, take the full responsibility for this decision and I am constantly thinking about the best solutions for the project.

Right now we have a strong momentum of growth along all aspects : price, volumes, holders, awareness, partnerships and integrations. Keeping such momentum for a couple of months will bring us to the multichain DeFi leaders and will help acquire strong market makers, VCs and community members, influencers and advocates. At the same time we think that longterm holders and believers in Graviton are crucial for the project’s success.

To me, the decision about the GTON withdrawal strategy is one of the most important governance decisions to be made for the project in the short term. So, based on in depth conversations with the team, advisors, ambassadors and EBs, I reconsidered my opinion and thus decided to add some more context to this decision:

I. Bi-Weekly Doubling: Even though this option was originally proposed as my favourable solution, I am now advocating in favour of option II. A gradual release over 18 weeks doesn’t really solve any potential sell pressure in the short run.

II. Unlimited Withdrawal: Opening up the claims to full capacity according to the unlock schedule. We might face a short term price correction, if some EBs decide to take profit, but we also would be able to focus on building without the distraction of claim discussions. This is also a solution to increase the freedom of individual decision making for every single DAO participant based on the initial EB proposal. In this case, and after some time of high volatility, the core team will put in all their efforts to continue the growth. At the same time, and given the high buy side demand in OTC deals, we will be helping EBs to exit their position with our newly established OTC custody desk, which won’t impact the GTON price. EBs basically sell their EB allocation to a buyer who becomes a new EB, while the GTON follow the same unlock schedule.

As mentioned above, the team and I are now convinced that opening the claims as planned is the most beneficial approach in the long run.

Nonetheless, the team will be implementing whatever option will be chosen by the governance vote. Rest assured that the whole core team’s goal is to continue growing and making Graviton a success for the community and as a leading multichain ecosystem.
Apart from my opinion/recommendation, and since we are having a very active discussion, I would be really keen to learn more about your opinions, ideas and also proposals for this topic.

We have to make a decision as a DAO and work as a united team for the project’s success.

Thanks again and best,

Alex P

4 Likes

I appreciate your willingness to add flexibility for withdrawals and consider all implications of price for the project. Knowing that EBs that withdraw and look to sell will go to OTC deals is reassuring.

Important to add though, that even with OTC service there is no guarantee for matching buyers and sellers in a balanced way and also some EBs might chose to still use a DEX for selling. Hard to predict what EBs will be doing with their unlocked allocations.

I also highly agree with this. Let the claims be open, the markets decide and let us focus on products, integrations and community building.

1 Like

At first, I was a supporter of the first option, too. But over time, the pressure on new investors will only increase over time if we choose the first option. In case of high volatility, there will be many who want to enter the project, so I think the second option is preferable.

The first option:

  • security (good)
  • unequal conditions for large and small EBs (bad)
  • risk for new investors due to increased desire to sell with the development of the project and the accumulation of tokens to sell (bad)

Second option:

  • equal terms for all EBs (good)
  • less pressure on new investors in case of a massive sale (good)
  • security (bad?)

I don’t think volatility is a negative side of the second solution, it’s fine

That is a good assessment actually, agree with most points, but would mind elaborating what you mean by security?

In many threads and discussions it was said that the withdrawal limit is made, among other things, for security purposes. so i assumed that in the case of unlimited withdrawal it may be a disadvantage. You know how many issues have arisen in terms of withdrawal in these three months . If there is even the slightest security risk (in your opinion), you should certainly put it at the forefront of your decision-making. Or extend the test period. For me (and for each), this point is the most important. If we are ready in this case, what are we waiting for?)

Oh no, I missed too much lately. I should visit the forum more frequently.

Although I am not a big EB, I would like them to have equal opportunity. Since percentage wise option is not available, OTC would give them a better opportunity.

Option 2 would crash the market and usually cause some traders to panic and sell at very low prices. I usually like this kind of market more. I’m not sure how it will effect the project. Lately many people bought at this high prices assuming that none will be able to dump. I also would like to be fair to them.

Since BTC seems like it entered another bull cycle, Gton price will also recover shortly I guess.

Option 1 is a safe bet for the project.

You can’t make everyone happy.

To be fair to every investor (as much as possible), I choose Option 1 and some OTC deals for big EBs.

Aggree with Jim about caculating by rate base on EB range 1000 - 50k invested

Combined Opt1 and OTC i think it is the best way to run.
We can create the OTC tele-group to set-line-up the deal.

1 Like

This whole topic is definitely complex.

There’s a fear of the community about the power of large EBs, and the potential effect on GTON if they all sold

In another thread, there was doubt about OTCs as the price of GTON was still very low (around 8 dollars). Rightfully so, the community wanted to wait until some more traction was gained.

The solution proposed by @alexp solves these two. If it’s about eliminating the effect of EB that now have >1million in GTON can cause on the market, the best way to deal with this is OTC, as this spreads their share over multiple buyers. EB prefer this over selling on the DEXs, as there will be no slippage. Therefore, we can assume EB will do this, if they want to sell anyways.

At this point, I don’t think waiting a couple of weeks longer is going to reduce the share of these EBs much. If anything, the value of their GTON will only increase.

Given the fact that percentage-wise and weekly claims will not be possible to implement. I think it will be better to simply remove the claim restrictions. Let the market do its thing.

Hi
We have currently created cross chain deposit and withdraw on fantom, most problems were with cross chain data transfer, soon we will come up with Solana and cross chain withdrawals.
We are testing this stuff for about month and making good efforts, actually explorers are also helping a lot in this and we are thinking about side audit
We want to be 100% sure all fine and secure not only with this functionality, if farms will have a security issue, though to withdraw limit hackers will not be able to steel money, so this limit secures us from big looses on gton if there might be any

The thing is the problem of large EB was created by not adding a max cap of investment, EB pool should not have surpassed 1-2 million, but some big wallets aped into the project when it was about to end. Option 1 seems more viable, even i think is too fast for all investors, 18 weeks seems like a bleeding period for the price, it should be doubled at least, so the project can develop as it ‘frees’ tokens.

If this becomes a DAO proposal, it will be strange, mostly because ‘gton EB whales’ will obviously vote for the unlimited withdrawal, and probably have most of the voting power.

Something between the lines of option 1 should be the most sustainable path

Another thing is that, from the point of view of EB, the option 2 will create this dilemma:

  • If we all are able to claim the tokens, i as an investor would assume that many will sell and dump the price. So it is logical that i should sell as many GTON as i can before it gets dumped, creating a psichological sell pressure from EB. A delayed option 1 does not create this rush and pressure.
1 Like

I do agree with @Jim, releasing the tokens as soon as possible is the best we can do. I don’t know why everybody is worrying about a huge dump. Whales don’t even have a possibility to dump, without harming their portfolio a lot. The only way would be via OTC.

From my perspective, what we see currently is a very artificial price. We have hardly any liquidity and volatility might go in both directions very fast. Like this, we will not see a realistc determination of the price anytime soon.

Crypto is crypto, so sadly there is a huge amount of speculation which can cause substantial fluctuations.

To comment on your argument. Whales are not gonna dump because this would be done with huge losses. OTC deals are far more favorable.

Sure, a bunch of people can dump, but those elements are usually followed by a bunch of people buying afterwards. These are properties typical for crypto (or maybe I should say the users of crypto), and there’s not much that we, as a project, can do to prevent that. Gradual claim of EB tokens was an idea, but cannot be implemented in a way that is equally fair for small and big investors.

Nonetheless, the team has come up with some measures:

  • Pathway is an idea that tries to impose gradual, non fluctual growth.
  • OTC deals for EB enables the transfer of liquidity without impacting the market cap much.
  • A personal suggestion is rewarding people that lock their liquidity, thereby de-incentivising day-trading practices.
1 Like