Mostly abstaining in protest of the tiny HDX buffer this leaves. ❤️

I ultimately decided to vote nay on this because I would like the see a larger buffer for HDX on future LP adds. I suggest making it so that HDX will be 6% after the LP add. 

Good morning everyone - as you can see, this liquidity add was unsuccessful!

I'll leave this discussion open over the weekend to see if we can understand the reasons for it failing before moving forward in the new week.

We will also ensure more time for votes moving forward unless critical.

This team does not want discussion. I just noticed the one discussion that was going on In TG chat has been muted. Silence any opinion that does not match what the team wants. This is a real problem. Don't ask for discussion and then silence it. One downvote from me for every hour the user is silenced.

[@7L1T...smJd](7L1T9Vfb5XNe6KNB3aVH6raiorjZzGSMTvhdrZ8TaJNqsmJd-hydradx) great to see you reach out!
I'd love to understand what it was about this proposal that you voted against - this way we can see if there are improvements that can be made before it is resubmitted in the coming days.

[@lolmcshizz](7Ljigfve9PdRqvSjiRGUjVf37rbX3n89ZmaitD2hQQhtLBMN-hydradx) You stopped honest discussion on the chat this morning. Muting users is a way of hiding agendas. I will vote no on all proposals moving forward if the mute is not removed. You personally muted that user. Very offensive.

[@7L1T...smJd](7L1T9Vfb5XNe6KNB3aVH6raiorjZzGSMTvhdrZ8TaJNqsmJd-hydradx) with respect - I did not mute any discussion, I muted an individual (for 24H) who after hours of discussion was seemingly still not understanding and failing to make a point - it was incredibly disruptive to other users using the channel to seek support.

The discussion is still visible for all to see.

It would be useful if you could clearly state your reasons for rejecting the proposal so that we can identify any needed areas for improvement :)

[@7L1T...smJd](7L1T9Vfb5XNe6KNB3aVH6raiorjZzGSMTvhdrZ8TaJNqsmJd-hydradx) 🤡🤡🤡

”Hello Mr G” might have been the most uninformed “investor” I’ve ever seen. If we could enact governance to permanently mute that tg account I think it would unanimously pass. 

[@7L1T...smJd](7L1T9Vfb5XNe6KNB3aVH6raiorjZzGSMTvhdrZ8TaJNqsmJd-hydradx) @lolmcshizz I do not have telegram. Can you share that discussion here? 

[@7Lb6...21YU](7Lb6pk6gWvfmQdeszstAe7SPHuoUWmVeqGhup7yVUdwH21YU-hydradx) 
I am curious, what was he misinformed about?  If you read what i read, The concern revolves around POL liquidity fee's collected and not returned to the token holders. According to the discussion, the token holders are the DAO, The DAO owns the liquidity, why would the earnings of the POL not be returned or shared with the Token holders? Even I would like to know this.

Dear “Hello MR G”,
It sounds like you were asking:
1. What is the benefit to the common HDX holder of letting fee earnings accumulate as more POL in omnipool?
2. What is the benefit to the common LP provider of adding more POL?  

My thoughts: 
As a random investor, assessing the value of the HDX token, I would do an analysis similar to what is done for stocks. 

In addition to other things, I would consider the price, market cap, earnings, total amount of capital owned by HDX holders (POL), and some assessment what can be expected in the future. 

If POL is valued more than the fully diluted valuation of HDX, then HDX looks like an attractive buy. HDX shareholders could vote to dissolve the enterprise and come out at breakeven or better. 

If earnings are high, even if POL is less than fully diluted valuation, then HDX looks like an attractive buy because POL is increasing and I can anticipate my investment will become more valuable over time.  

By letting fees earned by POL accumulate in the omnipool, we are doing the following:

A. **increasing the total capital owned by HDX holders (increasing POL)**. This makes HDX look more attractive to potential new investors. 

B. **increasing the liquidity in the omnipool which reduces the price change on large trades**. This increases the value of our product and makes us more competitive. Traders, and thus volume, tends to move toward the most efficient systems. A traders bottom line is to receive as much of asset Y for as little of asset X as they can. Reducing the price impact means traders get more Y for less X. This helps us attract more users. More users means more volume. More volume, more fees. More fees, more earnings for HDX holders (POL increases faster). 

C. **increasing the fraction of LP that is protocol controlled**. This reduces the amount of LRNA sold back to the omnipool (unless HDX holders vote to sell LRNA back). Less LRNA sold to the omnipool makes it more likely that the HubAssetImbalance can reach zero and protocol fees can be directed toward increasing the value of HDX. Less LRNA sold back to the omnipool reduces the liquidity drainage experienced by LP providers. LP providers bottom line is to earn as much yield as they can. LRNA sellbacks decrease yield. 

It could be argued that item C also discourages outside LP because a smaller fraction of fees go to outside LP providers. This is true, but generally balanced by the increased volume and trading fees that occur in places with low slippage/price impact. Traders want MAX LP. LP providers want MIN LP, but MAX trade volume. Ultimately, its traders providing the yield, so increasing LP and reducing friction (fees) actually ends up increasing yield except in fully saturated environments that cannot gain additional volume. 

A good example is uniswap v3. When the option to reduce fees was added, volume increased such that it is generally more profitable to use the lower fee setting. LP providers charging lower fees see enough extra volume to more than counterbalance the reduced fee per trade. 



[@amphibiousParakeet](7KejvRw4GZvVjFQEDefAsBRd9iaTjVeUWczB44Mgu8Bue8JW-hydradx)Thank you for bringing the chat log here. I was expecting a long nasty exchange but surprisingly it seems very calm and level. I did not see any name-calling or personal attacks in the chat other than a weird deez nuts mention.  I can appreciate you reading this thread and breaking it down. You have isolated a lot of points from the conversation. I was unaware of the benefit the team was offering by not paying LRNA on the POL.

We here not for fight but for succes of Hydra project ) So i think issue solved and closed  ?  

This referendum, if approved, will:

--------------------------------------

- Send **245.5 WETH & 200,000 DAI** from Acala to HydraDX treasury

- **Increase TVL cap to $10,000,000**
- Set weight caps of WETH & DAI to 100% 
- **Add 245.5 WETH to Omnipool**
- **Add 200 000 DAI to Omnipool**
- Set weight cap of WETH to 45% 
- Set weight cap of DAI to 45% 

#47·Transfer Omnipool Liquidity & Add to Omnipool