What do you think of the model of buying back and burning with the usdc received as a transaction fee, not the current way of paying usdc to dydx holders?
I think the problem with dydx at the moment is that there is no attractive reason to hold the token.
Of course, receiving usdc as a fee can be a big reason to hold it, but it seems that there are more dydx sold on the market than the usdc received as a fee, so it is less attractive to hold the token.
You can see this by looking at the market value of dydx right now.
In order to increase the status of dydx, I think it is also important to increase the value of the token.
I think it is good in the long run that the more scarce and highly utilized tokens become, the more users want to get the token and the higher the trading volume. Like bnb.
DYDX should create a reason for holders to hold the token for the long term.
I think it is better to increase the value of the token itself through burn than to allocate usdc in the short term.
What do others think🤔?
2 Likes
I very much agree that there should be an additional reason to hold and stake $DYDX.
In the end the proposals we see to have Protocol-Owned-Staking should not be needed if staking the asset is very very attractive.
We have seen that a chain does not necessarily need inflation (for example KUJI) to still have a decent value accrual. Not sure if token burns cut it tbh, but things like fee reductions for higher amounts of $DYDX might be an option (a model like $BNB)
2 Likes
half the tokens shd be burnt
Previously, dYdX offered numerous incentives, including fee reductions and rewards bonuses. Subsequently, the decision-makers chose to discontinue these benefits. This decision was quite perplexing.
Damn, why change a winning formula people normally say…
1 Like
does anyone have the latest breakdown of where the tokens are>? there is no question that the constant dilution for various projects is the main reason the token doesnt do well. that as well as the fact it cant really be offered on robinhood coinbase etc. Hopefully quite soon here they will begin to run out of tokens to dilute with, though the latest coingecko has about 50% coins unlicked and trading, given a mkt cap of 1B or so at $2.
rather than buyback and burn at present time (though you can argue that large community staking DYDX that the community or treasury has staked should burn with its share of USDC fees)
I think things should be done to try and increase the fees, the fees really are quite reasonable and especially for taker fees and people trading at the market and really sucking liqudity, i think there is room to charge more of a fee for that andstill have everyone be happy.
remember too a large percentage of TRADING FEES are rebated in the form of DYDX, eventually this just has to stop really especially for more vampirtic traders on DYDX. DYDX is providing a service by having a market place for decentralized trading. there also should be little or no fees on leveraged trading, you shouldnt get a huge reward on a trade where you used high leverage and rather you should be charged more of a token fee (to accrue to stakers) when users trade with leverage. Robinhood charges 8% fees on margin.
at the same time I understand the desire to build the platform and increase traders etc. but there is no question it obliterates the token value wiht the amount of dilution going on every day week month.
I still think its worth holding onto all the tokens you acrue. once the dilution calms down some the token should perform quite well as it does have that cash flow. a sustained bull in crypto would help as increased users / volumes will solve many of these problems.