This RFC would like to gather feedback surrounding the current Gamma position the TreasuryDAO holds in order to receive managed liquidity on Uniswap v3 for the MTA/ETH pair and discuss next steps regarding a potential migration to v2 of Gamma, or a sunsetting of the engagement based on initial community feedback received.
Gamma has recently upgraded some of their pairs to v2 (essentially providing a better overall strategy), and it is now an opportune time to discuss what to do with our current Gamma v1 position. Currently, we are engaged with Gamma by having a MTA/ETH pair deployed on their platform which is actively managed by them to provide concentrated liquidity on Uniswap v3.
With the upgrade to their next version and with some initial concerns around the usability of this position brought up by the community, we should now decide on how to proceed with this opportunity moving forward.
We should find consensus on whether or not to migrate to v2 with our position or claim back the position and sunset the opportunity with Gamma.
Migrating the position will require a small adjustment in the current setup of smart contracts, to allow for the sending of MTA from the Emissions Controller to the upgraded contract, and also require a migration of the existing position from what I was able to gather from the Gamma team.
Sunsetting of the opportunity will require the removal of the Emissions Controller dial, as well as the claiming back of the position from Gamma back to the TreasuryDAO once the dial has been removed.
For more information regarding what Gamma has planned for 2022, please see this dedicated blog post.
With the recent critique brought up by @dimsome on the effectiveness of the liquidity on Gamma, and the timely arrival of the upgraded version of Gamma and it’s new features, it is now time for Meta Governors to decide on how to proceed with this opportunity for the foreseeable future.
This RFC also coincides with the current discussion for deploying of our own liquidity on Uniswap v3 moving forward, but should be seen as distinct from it, as we won’t be actively managing the liquidity deployed there, and both pairs are not competing with each other.
Therefore, we should come to consensus on whether or not we wish to continue receiving actively managed liquidity by a 3rd party provider or not.
Of particular note here is as well is that the Ondo Finance LaaS engagement has ended a while ago, and additional liquidity is required to continue offering sufficient depth on the MTA token. In theory, the amount of MTA required will be strictly dependent on whether or not we continue to pursue this sort of actively managed position or not.
- Resolve the ongoing debate around the Gamma position
- Have a clear way forward for mStable’s liquidity on AMMs for 2022 and beyond
- Developer work will be required for this regardless, which will impact the work that can be done for mStable v2
It is suggested that the community comment on this RFC in the coming days, and bearing no significant opposition or change in ideation, we would move ahead with this RFC in the coming week and create a formal draft proposal on Github to be used for review.
Meta Governors are encouraged to provide as much feedback as possible until then, so we can create the best possible outcome for mStable and its users.