7ccd25ff7e
- Source: inbox/archive/2024-01-24-futardio-proposal-develop-amm-program-for-futarchy.md - Domain: internet-finance - Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 5) Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>
5.1 KiB
| type | domain | description | confidence | source | created | processed_date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim | internet-finance | MetaDAO's AMM migration replaces CLOBs with liquidity-weighted pricing and high fees to address futarchy's core liquidity, manipulation, and state rent cost problems | experimental | MetaDAO proposal CF9QUBS251FnNGZHLJ4WbB2CVRi5BtqJbCqMi47NX1PG by joebuild, passed 2024-01-24 | 2024-01-24 | 2024-01-24 |
MetaDAO's AMM program replaces CLOB architecture to solve futarchy liquidity and manipulation problems through liquidity-weighted pricing and high-fee LP incentives
MetaDAO's passed proposal (2024-01-24) to migrate from Central Limit Order Books (CLOBs) to Automated Market Makers (AMMs) addresses three structural failures in the futarchy implementation: insufficient liquidity due to wide uncertainty ranges discouraging limit orders near midpoint prices, manipulation susceptibility through bid/ask spread exploitation and selective market cranking, and recurring state rent costs of 135-225 SOL annually (3.75 SOL per market pair × 3-5 proposals/month, valued at $11,475-$19,125 at 2024 prices).
The AMM mechanism uses liquidity-weighted average price over time as the settlement metric, where greater liquidity depth on the order book increases the weight given to current prices, with updates on every swap. High fees (3-5%) serve dual purposes: incentivizing liquidity providers and aggressively discouraging wash-trading and price manipulation. The design expects liquidity to start low at proposal launch, with early traders moving the AMM price to their preferred level, then providing liquidity at that price due to high fee incentives, creating a bootstrapping effect where liquidity increases over the proposal duration.
The AMM removes the 1 META minimum order size spam filter that CLOBs required, enabling trading at any granularity. Proposers must lock initial liquidity and set starting pass/fail market prices as a commitment mechanism.
Evidence
Liquidity problem diagnosis (from proposal):
- "Estimating a fair price for the future value of MetaDao under pass/fail conditions is difficult, and most reasonable estimates will have a wide range. This uncertainty discourages people from risking their funds with limit orders near the midpoint price, and has the effect of reducing liquidity (and trading)."
- Current CLOB implementation shows insufficient trading activity
- State rent costs: 3.75 SOL per market pair × 3-5 proposals/month = 135-225 SOL annually ($11,475-$19,125 at 2024 prices)
Manipulation vectors in CLOB implementation:
- "With CLOBs there is always a bid/ask spread, and someone with 1 $META can push the midpoint towards the current best bid/ask."
- "Users can selectively crank the market of their choosing. Defending against this (cranking markets all the time) would be a bit costly."
- "VWAP can be manipulated by wash trading. An exponential moving average has the same drawbacks in this context as the existing linear-time system."
AMM design specifics:
- Metric: liquidity-weighted price over time (more liquidity = more weight to current price)
- Fee structure: 3-5% to incentivize LPs and discourage manipulation
- Proposers must lock initial liquidity and set starting pass/fail prices
- AMMs cost "almost nothing" in state rent vs 3.75 SOL per CLOB market
- Removes 1 META minimum order size, enabling trading at any granularity
Implementation scope:
- Program changes: basic AMM with liquidity-weighted average price tracking, integration with autocrat + conditional vault, permissionless pause/close features
- Timeline: 3 weeks development + 1 week review
- Budget: 400 META on passing + 800 META on completion
- Team: joebuild (program), 0xNalloK (frontend), TBD (review)
- Status: Passed 2024-01-24, completed 2024-01-29
Challenges
Adoption uncertainty: "Similar to an orderbook, available liquidity will be decided by LPs. AMMs will incentivize LP'ing, though adoption within the DAO is not a certainty."
Standard smart contract risk: Mainnet deployment before asset migration allows testing but carries inherent contract risk.
One-sided liquidity limitation: AMMs don't support one-sided liquidity provision that some users may want. The proposal argues this can be satisfied through regular spot markets or arbitrage between spot and pass/fail markets.
State rent recoupment alternative: Feedback during proposal vote noted that "there are ways to recoup openbook state rent costs, though it would require a migration of the current autocrat program."
Related claims:
- 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.md
- MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions.md
- futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md
- shared-liquidity-amms-could-solve-futarchy-capital-inefficiency-by-routing-base-pair-deposits-into-all-derived-conditional-token-markets.md
Topics: