Regarding the liquidity proposal for $MET, I was concerned about the amount of tokens for immediate liquidity (5%), considering the total released during the TGE (40%).
Here is a suggestion that adjusts some numbers, to ensure more liquidity during the TGE and for a period of a few weeks and months after.
How about redistributing the 25% of the $MET supply in another way?
15% to the Liquidity Rewards Reserve (previously 20%): to be distributed over two years post-TGE.
Reducing from 20% to 15% allows reallocating resources to immediate liquidity during the TGE, maintaining this robust long-term rewards program with a slightly smaller allocation.
8% to the TGE Reserve (previously 5%): Intended for initial liquidity provision, market-making, and price stabilization during the TGE.
Increasing to 8% ensures deeper liquidity at launch, reducing the risk of market manipulation and excessive volatility, especially with 40% of the supply in circulation.
Create an Immediate Liquidity Stimulus Program with the remaining 2%. This is a short-term incentive program (e.g. the first 3 months post-TGE).
Extra rewards for LPs who provide liquidity in the first 90 days, with a points multiplier for specific pools.
Create some kind of bonus for those who lock up some $MET LPs in Meteora.
Kudos to team for come up with this proposal but base on my understanding and feedback, I’m throw in this question to get responses from team.
How does the proposed allocation align with $MET’s tokenomics with vesting schedules, burn mechanisms, Will the 25% allocation impact the token’s long-term value accrual for non-LP holders? Or their is no mechanism as vesting and burning plans.
This proposal highlight and mentions using Meteora DLMM, DAMM V2, or Dynamic Bonding Curve for the $MET launch. What factors will influence the final choice of mechanism, and how will each option impact the liquidity needs covered by the 5% TGE Reserve?
And
How will Meteora mitigate the risk of over-incentivization, where excessive rewards lead to unsustainable liquidity provision or token inflation pressures post-TGE? The way will see it in case study of the token you listed above.
I believe in Meteora and I’m confidence they have well experienced people to carry out TGE process but post TG action needs to be well planned in other to avoid token dilutions. No rushing.
Soju - it sounds like you are finally coming up with ways to reverse some of Ben’s poor decisions. Hopefully this 20% that you speak of is the 20% that Ben promised to Mercurial. At a minimum that 20% should be vested over 2 years.
Lets not let Ben’s bad judgement take the project down even tho he is gone. The MER promises should be cancelled because Ben is in litigation, but at a minimum they should be forced to vest over 2 years in the event that the fraudsters started grooming Ben earlier than is known and it is more problematic than expected to trace. Those tokens should be put to the side!
20% Liquidity Rewards Reserve — to be used for 2 years of liquidity mining rewards after TGE**
Mercurial are investors of this project
its not airdrop and its not promise just done by Ben
there are bunch of people who made that decision and in terms of vesting its team interest to have vesting or not on what terms they had conversation before
focus on things that can change not on things that happened years back which wont change
Thank you to the Meteora team for a well-structured proposal. Overall, the creation of both the Liquidity Rewards Reserve and the TGE Reserve appears strategically sound and well-aligned with the long-term vision. I’d like to highlight a few key points:
The 20% Liquidity Rewards Reserve is a strong and supportive mechanism to maintain momentum for the LP Army and attract continued liquidity post-TGE. I fully support this allocation.
The 5% TGE Reserve, however, may be insufficient given that ~40% of the supply is expected to be circulating on day one. Comparisons with JUP (5% for 13.5% circulation) and CLOUD (10% on DLMM) suggest that a higher reserve might be necessary.
This doesnt make sense and using Jup as a case study is a horrible example and certaintly not the cloud launch.
Just seems like a shady way to go about it.
Too much in circulation and still the same allocation for the airdrop.
You dont need 5% for MM activities, you tons of folks that will do it and it will naturally happen with this being a huge launch, you dont need 5% added just so you can add supply to a dlmm and it gets sent back to the dao if not used in full. Aka if not all bins get used or we collect enough sol fees, we will send the rest back to the dao.
Met team doesnt need to leverage for liquidty, thats a horrible way to go about it and met team shouldnt need 5% for tge needs.
You arent even sure which method.
Using the dynamic bonding curve will be messed up for anyone thats not a whale and will expose risk to insiders.
Damm v2 should be a general pool opened and imo thats where the extra supply should to, into a fair amm, NOT A DLMM.
Dlmm for a tge makes 0 sense when everyone and their mother will be opening a dlmm.
Seems like this is used as excuse to boot strap the new program more than anything. Work more on the stimulus plans for community that helped get you to this point.
Matching token incentives and season 2 shouldnt be part of thos proposal.
Most people dont understand what this propsal will result in and just see that 5% is being added, this is a trojan horse style proposal and people should be more vocal about it.
This is well-structured and aligns with Meteora’s goal of sustaining liquidity and community engagement. Allocating 20% for a Liquidity Rewards Reserve is strategic, ensuring post-TGE incentives like matching token rewards and continuing the LP Stimulus Plan, which has proven effective.
This supports the LP Army’s role in driving retail liquidity and fosters long-term adoption, potentially with programs like DAMM V2.
The 5% TGE Reserve for liquidity provision and market-making is reasonable but may be tight given the 40% initial circulating supply. The JUP (5% vs. 13.5%) and CLOUD (10%) case studies suggest a higher reserve could stabilize early trading. While the LP Army’s airdrop leverage is a strength, a slightly higher reserve 7-8% might mitigate volatility risks.
Transparency in documenting the 5% usage and returning excess to the DAO is commendable. Consider clarifying the timeline for the 20% reserve’s deployment and potential governance mechanisms for its strategic use. Overall, the proposal is robust, but a modest increase in the TGE Reserve could enhance stability.
Gmets.
of MET wouldn’t be an ideal situation during a rough spell.