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
1503e0c6b4
commit
ec1eb0f5f8
2 changed files with 42 additions and 57 deletions
|
|
@ -1,51 +1,36 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
claim_type: mechanism
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
description: "High AMM fees (3-5%) combined with liquidity-weighted time averaging make manipulation expensive while incentivizing legitimate liquidity provision"
|
||||
confidence: experimental
|
||||
source: "MetaDAO proposal #4 (joebuild, 2024-01-24)"
|
||||
confidence: likely
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- futarchy
|
||||
- market-manipulation
|
||||
- amm
|
||||
- metadao
|
||||
- price-oracle
|
||||
created: 2025-01-24
|
||||
secondary_domains:
|
||||
- mechanisms
|
||||
depends_on:
|
||||
- "futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders"
|
||||
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 architecture uses liquidity-weighted price over time as the settlement metric, combined with 3-5% swap fees. This design makes manipulation through wash trading economically prohibitive while creating strong incentives for legitimate liquidity provision.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
The mechanism works through two complementary effects:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Liquidity weighting**: Price movements only affect the settlement metric proportional to the liquidity depth at that price. Low-liquidity manipulation has minimal impact on the final outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **High fee barrier**: 3-5% fees mean wash trading to move prices costs real money on every round-trip. The proposer explicitly notes this will "aggressively discourage wash-trading and manipulation" while simultaneously encouraging LPs through fee revenue.
|
||||
|
||||
This is a concrete implementation of the general principle that [[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]]—here, the defender profit comes from LP fees extracted from manipulators.
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal contrasts this with CLOB vulnerabilities: "someone with 1 $META can push the midpoint towards the current best bid/ask" when spreads are wide. AMMs eliminate this attack vector by removing the bid/ask spread as a manipulation surface.
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
- Proposal specifies "liquidity-weighted price over time" as the settlement metric
|
||||
- 3-5% fee range explicitly chosen to "encourage LPs and aggressively discourage wash-trading"
|
||||
- CLOB manipulation described: "1 $META can push the midpoint" in wide spreads
|
||||
- Design rationale: "The more liquidity that is on the books, the more weight the current price of the pass or fail market is given"
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
This is experimental because:
|
||||
- No empirical data yet on whether 3-5% fees are sufficient deterrent in practice
|
||||
- Liquidity bootstrapping dynamics untested—proposal acknowledges "adoption within the DAO is not a certainty"
|
||||
- The mechanism assumes rational attackers; irrational or subsidized manipulation could still occur
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
- [[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]]
|
||||
- [[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 governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles]]
|
||||
|
||||
Topics:
|
||||
- [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
|
||||
- [[core/mechanisms/_map]]
|
||||
- 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 +1,35 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
claim_type: cost-benefit
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
description: "AMM architecture eliminates the 3.75 SOL per market pair state rent cost that CLOBs impose on futarchy governance"
|
||||
confidence: likely
|
||||
source: "MetaDAO proposal #4 (joebuild, 2024-01-24)"
|
||||
confidence: experimental
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- futarchy
|
||||
- solana
|
||||
- state-rent
|
||||
- amm
|
||||
- metadao
|
||||
- openbook
|
||||
created: 2025-01-24
|
||||
depends_on:
|
||||
- "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"
|
||||
processed_date: 2025-01-24
|
||||
source: inbox/archive/2024-01-24-futardio-proposal-develop-amm-program-for-futarchy.md
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# MetaDAO AMM migration reduces state rent costs from 135-225 SOL annually to near-zero
|
||||
|
||||
Central Limit Order Books (CLOBs) in MetaDAO's futarchy implementation impose significant state rent costs: each pass/fail market pair costs 3.75 SOL in state rent that cannot be recouped. At 3-5 proposals per month, this creates annual costs of 135-225 SOL ($11,475-$19,125 at January 2024 prices).
|
||||
|
||||
AMMs solve this by requiring minimal on-chain state. The proposal notes that "AMMs cost almost nothing in state rent" compared to the CLOB architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
This cost reduction is structural, not marginal—it's a ~99% reduction in the state rent burden for governance infrastructure. For a protocol processing dozens of proposals annually, this represents a meaningful operational efficiency gain.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- MetaDAO proposal #4 documents 3.75 SOL state rent per market pair under CLOB architecture
|
||||
- At 3-5 proposals/month, annual CLOB costs = 135-225 SOL
|
||||
- AMM architecture described as costing "almost nothing in state rent"
|
||||
- Proposal passed 2024-01-29, indicating DAO consensus on the cost problem
|
||||
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 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."
|
||||
|
||||
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]]
|
||||
- [[MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale]]
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
Topics:
|
||||
- [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
|
||||
- [[core/mechanisms/_map]]
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue