Back to Wish For Change
Timed Out
#449 WFC: Add a Liquidity Bootstrapping Pool (LBP) pallet to asset hub to enable initial price discovery and funding for next gen parachains.
Proposer:
Fvrb...FVGn
in Democracy
28th Aug '24
Description
AI Summary
Votes Bubble
Timeline
Evaluation
On Chain Info
Stats
Quote
Share
Copy
Update 3.9.24
added:
Ballpark costs
Estimate $20-40k depending on eventual complexity.
TL:DR
This wish for change seeks approval to develop and then integrate a new type of liquidity pool for asset hub that would enable early stage teams to leverage their native asset to bootstrap initial funding in a highly capital efficient, fair and sustainable manner
This strategy aims to create tighter economic alignment between the treasury, native stablecoin integrations and next generation parachain teams focused on meaningful adoption of the technology rather than a race to listings before attempting to backfill adoption into overly inflated expectations.
Teams would begin with an LBP style launch and then have the ability to progress to listings on asset conversion pallet before later launching on mainstream exchanges.
Polkadot 1.0
Polkadot 1.0 was oriented around onboarding parachains via crowd loans and auctions.
Teams raised funding for development through external financing and marketed their native tokens and use-cases to KSM and DOT holders who received the new network assets when they agreed to lock up their tokens to help teams secure 1 year leases on Kusama or 2 years leases on Polkadot.
In this model value accrued to parachain teams and individual KSM/DOT holders contributing to crowd-loans.
Common good treasuries received no upside exposure in this design.
The economic incentives of crowd loans provided the ecosystem’s primary marketing.
Polkadot 2.0
In Polkadot 2.0 crowd-loans have been replaced by coretime sales.
KSM/DOT are now used to purchase blockspace.
This network income is burned - turning opportunity costs into direct costs.
Coretime income now gives an objective measure of demand for Polkadot’s primary product.
However... it also removes speculative incentives of crowd loans that enabled first generation parachains to raise development funding and kickstart their economies.
Asset Conversion Pallet
The introduction of asset conversion pallet (ACP) to Kusama and Polkadot Asset Hubs (k/pAH) was designed to concentrate functionality, simplify asset-swaps and speed up external exchange integrations as asset owners can use Asset Hub to track information the total issuance of their asset in the entire network.
It has also set the stage for a new class of Papi/Smoldot based DEXs such as Kheoswap.
ACP pallet is based on Uniswap V2 logic and allows assets to be converted from one type to another by means of a constant product formula.
Constant product formula's are not that capital efficient, especially for bootstrapping new tokens with low liquidity and introduce issues such as front-running and the ability for whales to secure large amounts of a new tokens issuance.
Parachains 2.0
In the absence of the short-term speculative incentives of crowd loans, coretime customers are now required to create real economic value to sustain their direct costs.
There is not the same hype and market that first kickstarted parachains and so we should see this as an opportunity to create a more progressive and aligned mechanism for the funding, listing and focused adoption of next generation networks.
Liquidity Bootstrapping Pools (LBP)
Liquidity bootstrapping pools as pioneered by Balancer and also implemented in Basilisk’s Kusama parachain enable the fairest and most capital efficient method of price discovery for new tokens.
Rather than using a constant product formula like Uniswap (ACP) pools can dynamically change token weighting (e.g 1/99 to 99/1 for TokenA/TokenB) using weighted math with time-dependent weights. The starting and end weights and times are selected by the pool owner, who also has the power to pause swaps.
The benefits of this model are:
Sell Pressure
- During a weight shift, the token price of one token experiences sell pressure while the other experiences buy pressure. When this is mixed with modest swap volume, the price approaches the generally agreed-upon market price.
Fair Market
- LBPs often start with intentionally high prices. This strongly disincentivizes whales and bots from snatching up much of the pool liquidity at the get-go. When LBPs are used for early-stage tokens, this can help increase how widespread the token distribution is.
Starting Capital Can Be Small
- Teams who use LBPs to kickstart the liquidity of a token that has not been well distributed yet can do so with minimal starting capital. For a team running an LBP with their TOKEN and STABLECOIN, starting with 10% or 20% STABLECOIN, as opposed to 50% STABLECOIN like they might need on another platform, significantly reduces their starting capital requirements.
Examples
- Fjord Foundry LBP platform
- Gitcoin Akita/ETH LBP
Adding a bespoke LBP design to Kusama AH.
Introducing a bespoke LBP design to Kusama Asset Hub in the same manner as ACP reworked Uniswap v2, would lower barriers to entry for teams wishing to launch on coretime and smooth their path to liquidity in ACP and eventual CEX listings enabled by AH.
Ultimately we are iterating the underlying technical architecture to enable more finely tuned innovation support phases that will in turn ensure better conditions for teams looking to launch and sustain projects alongside generating more tangible value for the underlying network.
Treasury participation w/ Krievo structuring
Polkadot’s evolving on-chain governance capabilities - such as those offered by Krievo's parachain and operating system unlocks the potential to construct and mediate more balanced economic arrangements than were possible in its initial iteration of crowd-loans.
With this in mind, the introduction of an LBP type structure would introduce a useful new tool for common-good treasuries to support and gain exposure to projects focused on meaningful adoption rather than hollow speculation.
R&D
As a member of The Fellowship, Daniel from the Virto/Krievo team has agreed to lead the research and hopefully the eventual implementation of this WFC if it is approved.
As a member of The Fellowship, Daniel from the Virto/Krievo team has agreed to lead the research and hopefully the eventual implementation of this WFC if it is approved.
Ballpark costs
Estimate $20-40k depending on eventual complexity.
Related reading
Uni-LBP - A capital-efficient Uniswap v4 liquidity bootstrapping pool (LBP) hooks contract.
Show More
Please Log In to comment
6Comments
0%
0%
33%
67%
0%
Hw38...c75M
Quote
Share
Copy
i like the idea.
Have you talked with Basilisk team to see if would be possible to reuse their LBP pallet maybe?
i don't know if this is open-source, probably, so there is maybe no need to reinvent the wheel from scratch here.
Thx for your proposals, Uni v2 are going to be an efficiency on for sure on AH.
Hide replies
Fvrb...FVGn
Quote
Share
Copy
Have you talked with Basilisk team to see if would be possible to reuse their LBP pallet maybe? i don't know if this is open-source, probably, so there is maybe no need to reinvent the wheel from scratch here.
A little - they're welcome to comment. Their pallet is open source may well be useful as a starting point (afaik it is based on Balancers), however the central aim of this is to make a mechanim specific to asset hub, ksm treasury, parachain and on-chain collectives, so in all likelihood the eventual design will depart from theirs.
Not sure of their plan tbh see https://github.com/galacticcouncil/Basilisk-node/issues/646
https://github.com/galacticcouncil/hydration-node/tree/master/pallets/lbp
np. just got to rustle up a decision deposit again…
DDCN...23EF
Quote
Share
Copy
Questions:
1— To what extent has the ACP that has already been deployed to both Polkadot and Kusama Asset Hubs already been used to "concentrate functionality, simplify asset-swaps and to simplify external exchange integrations"?
2- Is the scope extent of this Wish For Change (WFC) to research and adapt existing LBP pallets to implement a Liquidity Bootstrapping Pool (LBP) pallet into the Polkadot SDK and deployed as a pallet on both the Polkadot and Kusama AssetHubs with parameters that may be configured by OpenGov and that would also be compatible with coretime and future JAM implementations?
3- How are teams currently achieving liquidity in the ACP without the LBP?
4- How would the introduction of the LBP lower barriers to entry for teams wishing to launch on Polkadot and Kusama Coretime?
Assumptions:
- The Asset Conversion Pallet (ACP) that you are referring to this implementation https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/tree/master/substrate/frame/asset-conversion, and as mentioned here in the Polkadot Wiki https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-asset-conversion-assethub and has already been deployed on both the Polkadot and Kusama Asset Hubs
Hide replies
Fvrb...FVGn
Quote
Share
Copy
> 1. To what extent has the ACP that has already been deployed to both Polkadot and Kusama Asset Hubs already been used to "concentrate functionality, simplify asset-swaps and to simplify external exchange integrations"?
It has already been deployed on both KSM+DOT - thats how https://kheoswap.xyz works.
Yes it is simplifying integrations. See '[Asset Hub: Streamlining CEX support](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAua-V05wuI)'.
Yes it is concentrating functionality by design.
> 2- Is the scope extent of this Wish For Change (WFC) to research and adapt existing LBP pallets to implement a Liquidity Bootstrapping Pool (LBP) pallet into the Polkadot SDK and deployed as a pallet on both the Polkadot and Kusama AssetHubs with parameters that may be configured by OpenGov and that would also be compatible with coretime and future JAM implementations?
Yes. The only question is based on the research phase whether the one existing [LBP pallet](https://github.com/galacticcouncil/hydration-node/tree/master/pallets/lbp) is a useful base / reference, or if its better to start from scratch.
> 3- How are teams currently achieving liquidity in the ACP without the LBP?
The majority ran their crowdloans + auctions, then went straight to CEXs.
A few Kusama chains like Invarch conducted LBPs on Basilisk, then CEXs.
The approach is hugely sub-optimal and is pretty much why the market look as it does, but these were the only options during the polkadot 1.0 era for teams who had raised outside investment, had high run-rates and therefore needed to race to a listing.
> 4- How would the introduction of the LBP lower barriers to entry for teams wishing to launch on Polkadot and Kusama Coretime?
If the mechanism and incentives are designed correctly (what the R&D stage is for), they would avoid the listing process entirely and could focus on creating a product with demand - in fact, if this is done correctly, teams would *only* unlock ACP listing and CEXs if they delivered actual usage and revenue.
This is getting into what should really constitute the research stage though so id rather not speculate on the eventual design.
HqRc...fVZn
Quote
Share
Copy
This is an interesting concept, I'll vote aye while I read though the details.
Fvrb...FVGn
Quote
Share
Copy
Have you talked with Basilisk team to see if would be possible to reuse their LBP pallet maybe? i don't know if this is open-source, probably, so there is maybe no need to reinvent the wheel from scratch here.
A little - they're welcome to comment. Their pallet is open source may well be useful as a starting point (afaik it is based on Balancers), however the central aim of this is to make a mechanim specific to asset hub, ksm treasury, parachain and on-chain collectives, so in all likelihood the eventual design will depart from theirs.
Not sure of their plan tbh see https://github.com/galacticcouncil/Basilisk-node/issues/646
https://github.com/galacticcouncil/hydration-node/tree/master/pallets/lbp
np. just got to rustle up a decision deposit again...
H1qz...KUFs
Quote
Share
Copy
Questions: 1、Who provides liquidity, and where do the liquidity providers’ profits come from? In other words, what is the value capture logic? 2、How does this differ from hydration? Are there any overlaps in use cases with hydration?
Hide replies
Fvrb...FVGn
Quote
Share
Copy
- The LBP could use KSM from treasury (or possibly via the burn and utilise a new stablecoin which is coming soon.
In the end an LBP type feature is good for a project to raise funds with their native token and ultimately receive a stablecoin which is better for development funding than KSM.
Compared to previous LBPs in Basilisk, we can think about the tool in a smaller and more focused way - so rather than it being a 'big' LBP that needs to raise millions, it can be smaller and project based.
Think of this achieving the goals of an LBP, but without being explicitly the current LBP pallet on Hydra.
- It will be a key component in a mechanism that is designed to better align incentives between ksm treasury, parachain and project team.
hydration / basilisk isn't designed with the three elements mind so it captures value in a narrower/short term way.
Di9w...Za8x
Quote
Share
Copy
Aye, explained here:
Discover similar proposals
#509
E5qF...tqrg
Deciding
KSM RFP #1 - Shielded Kusama Hub Transfers - $50k Total Prize!
Quote
Share
Copy
See More
24th Mar '25
Treasurer
Treasurer
#509 KSM RFP #1 - Shielded Kusama Hub Transfers - $50k Total Prize!
E5qF...tqrg
24th Mar '25
Quote
Share
Copy
This RFP was adapted over several weeks on AAG to turn a treasury proposal in discussion to an RFP with refined scope and oversight.
To apply for the prize pls fill out this form.
Prize Pool: $43,000
Finder’s Fee: $2,000 **
Supervisors: $5,000
Supervisors (Bounty Curators)
- Flipchan
- Byte (Erin)
- James Slusser
Excess or unused funds will be returned to the treasury by Bounty Curators.
Timeline
Monday, March 17 - AAG Discussion & this forum post! ✅
Monday, March 24 - Single-ref Bounty + Curators ✅
4 Weeks after Bounty Funding - Submission Deadline Thursday
July 31 - Project Completion (Pending Kusama Hub Launch)
Project Scope
Smart Contract Development
- A Solidity-based smart contract deployed on Kusama Hub
- ZK enabled for private deposits & withdrawals
- Compatibility with all Kusama Hub assets
User Interface
- Browser-based, mobile-ready UI hosted on IPFS
- Support for: Deposits, Withdrawals, Transfers, XCM Transfers
- Compatible with popular ecosystem wallets (Nova Wallet, Talisman, Subwallet)
Anti-correlation Attack Mitigations:
- Fixed deposit amounts (e.g. 1, 10, 100, 1000 units)
- Batch payouts for withdrawals to multiple users
Interoperability - Ability to receive assets via XCM from any Kusama-connected parachain and transfer them to Kusama Hub for use in shielded pool.
Open-Source Delivery
- All code (smart contracts and UI) published under the MIT license
- Publicly accessible repositories Project updates shared transparently via Polkassembly, Subsquare, or Polkadot Forum from Team with Milestone deliveries
- Developer & User documentation
Milestones
Milestone 1, Initial Pools & Basic UI:
$16,200 USD
1 month
- Tests - Smart contract test
- Smart contract - ZK shielded smart contract with KSM and multi asset support on Westend or Paseo
- Basic UI - A basic UI for interacting with the smart contract
Milestone 2, UI + XCM:
$9,900
1 month
- Tests - tests for all features
- User interface design - UI design
- XCM transfers - XCM transfer assets in UI
- Fixed amount transfer only - Allow fixed amount transfers in the UI
Milestone 3, Mainnet Deployment:
$16,900
1 - 1.5 months
- Contract Migration to Kusama Assethub - Migrate contract from Testnet to Kusama Hub
- Public documentation - Documentation for using Kusama shield and developer integration documentation
- Test - tests for contract
- V1 UI - User tested & something we can be proud of
** re: Finder’s Fee: this payment is set aside to incentivize a broad search for the right implementor. Finder’s Fees are paid out at time of team engagement. Teams that submit themselves can collect their own Finder’s Fee at completion of project.
See More
Deciding
#511
GUUd...xV2R
Deciding
[Whitelisted Caller] Increase max_validators to 700
Quote
Share
Copy
This referenda increases the parachain validator set size from 600 to 700. The maximum backing group size is kept to 5, so the total number of usable cores increases to 140.
See More
31st Mar '25
Whitelisted Caller
Whitelisted Caller
#511 [Whitelisted Caller] Increase max_validators to 700
GUUd...xV2R
31st Mar '25
Quote
Share
Copy
This referenda increases the parachain validator set size from 600 to 700. The maximum backing group size is kept to 5, so the total number of usable cores increases to 140.
Additionally, also update the setNDelayTranches from 257 to 299, so that the number of assignments per candidate stays constant to around ~2.33, the justification why this is the desired value for this parameter can be found in ELVES https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/961 paper and here.https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/6853#issuecomment-2540373492.
See More
Deciding