Would love to create a proposal for bntee bnvt and bnlm liquidity mining! What do we think and how can we do it? 
$250k a week (100 shirts) is $2.5k a week per shirt
$250k a week (200 shirts) $1.25k a week per shirt
$250k a week (300 shirts) $625 a week per shirt
I would love to see this happen. With the NFT scene becoming more relevant, it only makes sense for these to be a part of the Bancor platform. Happy to vote in favor of this.
This would be awesome to see !
What is the purpose of incentivizing liquidity on these?
As you get towards the end of the bonding curve for these shirts, it becomes exponentially harder to obtain a whole token. By providing liquidity to the pair, this allows for more users to participate.
Does it though? Fragmenting the liquidity actually makes the slippage worse, and creates arbitrage opportunity. The arbitrage actually makes the process overall, less efficient for traders.
There’s quite a few reasons to do this, including:
But the key thing to me is that it experiments with the whole mechanics behind DeFi clothing as:
Did I mention that afaik it’d be a first, and wouldn’t that add even more cool factor to it?
i will vote against this ,its just a party of shirt owner. LM should cover all BNTholder.
It could also draw negative attention. Having LM on a shirt token is probably not a good indicator of responsible fiscal management. Creating a pool for these tokens is fine - there is nothing stopping anyone from starting a v1 liquidity pool (permissionless) and driving the fee up to 5%. The arbitrage terading on it could be highly lucrative for the LPs, and this would also mean there is no recourse to spend the LM budget on it.
Another factor is dev time. LM is currently limited to whitelisted pools, and it is impossible to whitelist these, as the attack vectors are so easy.
I think this is a terrible idea that does nothing to improve the Bancor platform. It’s clearly an attempt to drive up the price of BNTee tokens using wreckless BNT inflation. In my opinion, this proposal is not in line with the purpose of the LM program, which seeks to incentivize liquidity providers and increase liquidity in important pools for the AMM.
The current proposal will lead to unnecessary BNT inflation, as it rewards a pool that provides no real merit to the platform.
Carlos and I have a similar take on this. The LM budget is to attract meaningful liquidity to grow the DEX. The BNTee tokens are a fun community phenomenon, and speculative investment opportunity. However, the cost to the protocol by activiating LM on them serves to benefit only an elite few, and does nothing for our network effects across DeFi as a whole.
Not sure how this benefits the protocol. Seems like needless brrrr.
100% agree with @mbr on this.
I don’t see how this promotes the protocol but rather creates an opportunistic option for a few people to make quick money and that’s not really the purpose of the LM program. Not to mention it’s not really healthy as these pools have a significant IL associated with them.
I am against this as it would not be beneficial for the protocol
I agree with the sentiments shared by @mbr on this post. I invested early in Bancor because it wasn’t another food token and has a top notch team. The research that was put out when 2.1 was launched was enough for me to trust the platform with my funds as everything that’s done has a lot of thought and research behind it. While the BNTee idea is fun and helps promote Bancor, I don’t think we should be allocating any tokens set aside for liquidity mining to these pools when they can be better use in more impactful ways (e.g. LM rewards for Uniswap) .
Can you provide more, data backed research and reasoning,
Any proven success record with similar approach?
What would be the monetary benefit (TVL, Volume,APY) expected increase caused by this upgrade?
What is the inflation caused by the proposal? How is it going to be counterbalanced by your solution?
I personally do not see any positive influence on key KPIs which is TVL, Volume or APY.
NFT clothing is not scalable and is driven by marketing, not science, but please prove me wrong with some relevant data and research about it. Looking forward.
We are not building “cool” or “kick ass” protocol, but economically sustainable and scalable liquidity protocol for future finance infrastructure. Any proposal that is not backed by data and science will not be treated seriously…
BNTEEs are not NFTs, they are fully liquid tokens on a bonding curve with volatile price swings. The IL this could cause that the protocol would need to insure is damaging. There is 0 benefit to the protocol or the broader Bancor community from this initiative.