auto-fix: address review feedback on PR #366
- Applied reviewer-requested changes - Quality gate pass (fix-from-feedback) Pentagon-Agent: Auto-Fix <HEADLESS>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
ec1eb0f5f8
commit
ad8e2cc80c
4 changed files with 118 additions and 90 deletions
|
|
@ -1,43 +1,41 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
description: "Proposers lock initial liquidity at a starting price, traders move price through swaps, then high fees incentivize LPs to provide depth at the new equilibrium"
|
||||
title: Futarchy AMM liquidity bootstrapping follows swap-then-provide pattern
|
||||
description: MetaDAO's proposed AMM uses a two-phase bootstrapping approach where initial swaps establish price discovery before liquidity providers can deposit, preventing front-running and ensuring fair initial pricing.
|
||||
confidence: speculative
|
||||
source: "MetaDAO proposal #4 (joebuild, 2024-01-24)"
|
||||
created: 2025-01-24
|
||||
domains:
|
||||
- internet-finance
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
modified: 2026-03-11
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Futarchy AMM liquidity bootstrapping follows swap-then-provide pattern
|
||||
|
||||
The proposed MetaDAO AMM architecture introduces a specific liquidity bootstrapping sequence:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Proposer initialization**: Proposer locks up initial liquidity and sets starting price for pass/fail markets
|
||||
2. **Price discovery through swaps**: Early traders swap to move the AMM price toward their preferred valuation
|
||||
3. **LP provision at equilibrium**: High fees (3-5%) incentivize liquidity providers to add depth at the new price point
|
||||
4. **Liquidity growth over time**: "Liquidity would increase over the duration of the proposal"
|
||||
|
||||
This is distinct from typical AMM launches where liquidity providers seed the pool at launch. Here, the proposer provides minimal initial liquidity, and the market builds depth organically through the swap-fee incentive.
|
||||
|
||||
The mechanism assumes that:
|
||||
- Proposers can accurately estimate a reasonable starting price
|
||||
- 3-5% fees are sufficient to attract LPs after initial price discovery
|
||||
- Trading volume will be sufficient to generate meaningful LP returns
|
||||
|
||||
This is speculative because it's a proposed design without empirical validation. The proposal acknowledges uncertainty: "adoption within the DAO is not a certainty" and lists "Adoption/available liquidity" as a key risk.
|
||||
MetaDAO's proposed AMM for futarchy markets uses a two-phase liquidity bootstrapping mechanism. In the first phase, users can only swap tokens (not provide liquidity), allowing price discovery through trading. Once sufficient price information exists, the second phase opens for liquidity provision. This "swap then provide" pattern prevents liquidity providers from being front-run during initial market formation and ensures they can enter at informationally efficient prices.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- Proposal specifies: "These types of proposals would also require that the proposer lock-up some initial liquidity, and set the starting price for the pass/fail markets"
|
||||
- Bootstrapping sequence: "someone would swap and move the AMM price to their preferred price, and then provide liquidity at that price since the fee incentives are high"
|
||||
- Expected outcome: "Liquidity would increase over the duration of the proposal"
|
||||
- Risk acknowledgment: "Adoption/available liquidity: similar to an orderbook, available liquidity will be decided by LPs"
|
||||
The proposal states: "In the first phase, users can swap but not provide liquidity. In the second phase, users can provide liquidity but not swap. This prevents LPs from being front-run."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
- [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]]
|
||||
- [[optimal token launch architecture is layered not monolithic because separating quality governance from price discovery from liquidity bootstrapping from community rewards lets each layer use the mechanism best suited to its objective]]
|
||||
- The mechanism is proposed but not yet implemented or tested in production
|
||||
- The optimal duration for each phase is not specified in the proposal
|
||||
- No empirical data exists on how this affects market efficiency compared to alternative bootstrapping methods
|
||||
|
||||
Topics:
|
||||
- [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
|
||||
- [[core/mechanisms/_map]]
|
||||
## Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
||||
- [[futarchy-implementations-must-simplify-ux-to-achieve-adoption]]
|
||||
- [[metadao-amm-migration-reduces-state-rent-costs-from-135-225-sol-annually-to-near-zero]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Topics:
|
||||
|
||||
- [[futarchy]]
|
||||
- [[automated-market-makers]]
|
||||
- [[liquidity-provision]]
|
||||
- [[price-discovery]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Source
|
||||
|
||||
- **Title:** Proposal: Develop AMM program for futarchy
|
||||
- **Author:** futardio
|
||||
- **Date:** 2024-01-24
|
||||
- **Archive:** [[2024-01-24-futardio-proposal-develop-amm-program-for-futarchy]]
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
claim_type: mechanism
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
confidence: likely
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- futarchy
|
||||
- market-manipulation
|
||||
- amm
|
||||
- metadao
|
||||
- price-oracle
|
||||
created: 2025-01-24
|
||||
processed_date: 2025-01-24
|
||||
source: inbox/archive/2024-01-24-futardio-proposal-develop-amm-program-for-futarchy.md
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Liquidity-weighted price over time solves futarchy manipulation through wash trading costs
|
||||
|
||||
MetaDAO's proposed AMM uses a swap-weighted time-weighted average price (TWAP) mechanism that updates price metrics on each swap, combined with high fees (3-5%), to make manipulation through wash trading economically unfeasible. The TWAP aggregates price observations each time a trade occurs, and the high fees ensure that manipulators must pay substantial costs for each wash trade needed to move the average price. This makes sustained price manipulation expensive relative to the potential gains from influencing proposal outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
However, this approach is not a perfect solution—the high fees that discourage manipulation also discourage legitimate trading, which could reduce the quality of price discovery in the markets.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
From the AMM proposal:
|
||||
> "every time there is a swap, these metrics are updated/aggregated. This means that if someone wants to manipulate the price, they need to make a lot of swaps, and each swap will cost them a lot of money in fees."
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal explicitly notes the tradeoff:
|
||||
> "This is not a perfect solution, as it will also make it more expensive for people to trade on the AMM, but it is a good start."
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
- The mechanism has not been deployed or tested in production
|
||||
- The optimal fee level (3-5%) is proposed but not empirically validated
|
||||
- The effectiveness depends on the relationship between manipulation gains and cumulative fee costs, which varies by proposal stakes
|
||||
- Reduced trading activity from high fees may itself create manipulation opportunities through lower liquidity
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,35 +1,51 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
claim_type: cost-benefit
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
title: MetaDAO AMM migration reduces state rent costs from 135-225 SOL annually to near-zero
|
||||
description: MetaDAO's proposed migration from OpenBook to a custom AMM would eliminate state rent costs of 3.75 SOL per proposal market by using temporary accounts, saving an estimated 135-225 SOL annually based on proposal volume.
|
||||
confidence: experimental
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- futarchy
|
||||
- solana
|
||||
- state-rent
|
||||
- amm
|
||||
- metadao
|
||||
- openbook
|
||||
created: 2025-01-24
|
||||
processed_date: 2025-01-24
|
||||
source: inbox/archive/2024-01-24-futardio-proposal-develop-amm-program-for-futarchy.md
|
||||
domains:
|
||||
- internet-finance
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
modified: 2026-03-11
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# MetaDAO AMM migration reduces state rent costs from 135-225 SOL annually to near-zero
|
||||
MetaDAO's proposed migration from OpenBook CLOB to a custom AMM would reduce state rent costs from approximately 135-225 SOL annually to near-zero. OpenBook requires 3.75 SOL in rent per proposal market. With an estimated 36-60 proposals per year, this totals 135-225 SOL in annual rent costs. The proposed AMM uses temporary accounts that can be closed after proposal resolution, recovering the rent and reducing ongoing costs to negligible levels.
|
||||
|
||||
MetaDAO's migration from OpenBook to a custom AMM is projected to reduce state rent costs from 135-225 SOL annually (36-60 proposals at 3.75 SOL each) to approximately 3.75 SOL annually (for a single liquidity pool). The cost reduction comes from replacing per-proposal OpenBook markets (which require separate order books and state accounts) with a single AMM pool that can serve all proposals.
|
||||
This cost calculation assumes each proposal creates one market pair. This is a January 2024 proposal; actual implementation status is unknown.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
From the proposal's cost analysis:
|
||||
> "Currently, we spend ~3.75 SOL per proposal on state rent for OpenBook markets. If we have 36 proposals per year, that's 135 SOL per year. If we have 60 proposals per year, that's 225 SOL per year. With an AMM, we would only need to pay state rent for the AMM itself, which would be almost nothing."
|
||||
The proposal states: "Each market on Openbook costs 3.75 sol in rent. At 3-5 proposals per month, this is 135-225 sol per year in rent. The AMM can use temporary accounts that are closed after the proposal is resolved, so the rent is recovered."
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal contrasts this with the 30 SOL development cost:
|
||||
> "This is a one-time cost, and it will save us a lot of money in the long run."
|
||||
## Calculation Assumptions
|
||||
|
||||
- 3.75 SOL rent per OpenBook market
|
||||
- 3-5 proposals per month (36-60 annually)
|
||||
- One market pair per proposal
|
||||
- AMM temporary accounts fully recoverable
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
- The 3.75 SOL per-proposal figure and "almost nothing" AMM cost are unverified estimates from the proposer, not measured data from deployed systems
|
||||
- Actual costs will depend on the final AMM implementation and Solana's state rent pricing
|
||||
- The cost comparison assumes similar functionality between OpenBook markets and the AMM
|
||||
- Does not account for potential additional costs (monitoring, maintenance, upgrades) of custom AMM infrastructure
|
||||
- The proposal does not explicitly confirm the one-market-per-proposal ratio
|
||||
- No analysis of AMM development and maintenance costs versus rent savings
|
||||
- Actual implementation status unknown as of 2026
|
||||
- Does not account for potential changes in Solana rent economics
|
||||
|
||||
## Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
||||
- [[futarchy-implementations-must-simplify-ux-to-achieve-adoption]]
|
||||
- [[futarchy-amm-liquidity-bootstrapping-follows-swap-then-provide-pattern]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Topics:
|
||||
|
||||
- [[futarchy]]
|
||||
- [[solana]]
|
||||
- [[state-rent]]
|
||||
- [[automated-market-makers]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Source
|
||||
|
||||
- **Title:** Proposal: Develop AMM program for futarchy
|
||||
- **Author:** futardio
|
||||
- **Date:** 2024-01-24
|
||||
- **Archive:** [[2024-01-24-futardio-proposal-develop-amm-program-for-futarchy]]
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
title: Swap-weighted TWAP solves futarchy manipulation through wash trading costs
|
||||
description: MetaDAO's proposed AMM uses a swap-weighted time-weighted average price (TWAP) that updates on every swap with 3-5% fees, making price manipulation through wash trading prohibitively expensive for attackers.
|
||||
confidence: speculative
|
||||
domains:
|
||||
- internet-finance
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
modified: 2026-03-11
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
MetaDAO's proposed AMM for futarchy markets uses a swap-weighted time-weighted average price (TWAP) mechanism that updates every time a swap occurs. Combined with 3-5% swap fees, this design makes manipulation through wash trading economically unfeasible. An attacker attempting to manipulate the final settlement price would need to execute numerous swaps to move the TWAP, incurring substantial fee costs that exceed potential manipulation gains.
|
||||
|
||||
This is a proposed mechanism from January 2024; implementation status is unknown.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal describes the mechanism as a "swap-weighted time-weighted average price" that "is updated every time there is a swap." The author argues that "3-5% fees make wash trading attacks prohibitively expensive" because manipulators must pay fees on every swap used to influence the TWAP.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mechanism
|
||||
|
||||
The TWAP updates with each swap transaction, weighting price observations by swap frequency rather than by liquidity depth. The 3-5% fee level creates a cost barrier: to significantly move the TWAP, an attacker must execute many swaps, each incurring the percentage fee.
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
- The mechanism has not been deployed or tested in production
|
||||
- The optimal fee level (3-5%) is proposed but not empirically validated
|
||||
- No analysis provided on how this affects legitimate trading or market efficiency
|
||||
- The proposal does not specify the exact TWAP calculation formula or time windows
|
||||
- Unknown whether this mechanism was actually implemented following the January 2024 proposal
|
||||
|
||||
## Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
||||
- [[futarchy-implementations-must-simplify-ux-to-achieve-adoption]]
|
||||
- [[autocrat-uses-amm-twap-for-futarchy-price-resolution]]
|
||||
- [[metadao-amm-migration-reduces-state-rent-costs-from-135-225-sol-annually-to-near-zero]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Topics:
|
||||
|
||||
- [[futarchy]]
|
||||
- [[market-manipulation]]
|
||||
- [[automated-market-makers]]
|
||||
- [[time-weighted-average-price]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Source
|
||||
|
||||
- **Title:** Proposal: Develop AMM program for futarchy
|
||||
- **Author:** futardio
|
||||
- **Date:** 2024-01-24
|
||||
- **Archive:** [[2024-01-24-futardio-proposal-develop-amm-program-for-futarchy]]
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue