Hi @teamAsaf,
thanks for voicing your concerns so critically. We value your honesty and hope to further clarify the impact Almanak has on Bancor pools.
Furthermore, your feedback helps to additionally create more digestible reports and post clearer results.Let us dive into your last post
almanak slides do not clearly indicate an increase in fees over any test pool.
We tried to map this as visually appealing as possible but failed to do so. Specifically slide 7 of the report (check Ratio Fees/Volume for both clusters & the follow-up slide for volume) was made to cover this. Additionally, bear in mind that it is tough to spot it with the current market conditions. The effect will be amplified when market picks up. Since less volume is currently spent on DEXes, none of the exchanges can generate more fees to any comparable period, as fees depend on volume.
this on its own shows that they are unable to support the claim of improving the collected fees without hurting the volume.
Overall DEX market volume had a drawdown of 56% over the past 60 days. When comparing this to the loss in volume over the Bancor pools, we note a loss of 60.5% for non-Almanak pools and 65.4% for Almanak pools of Bancor. Note that we aggregate the Bancor numbers over the initial observation period (November 14th until December 11th) and average the numbers to compare the impact. We can therefore assume that Almanak was able to maintain overall market volume of the Bancor pools relative to the DEX average.
We now can have a look at the fee revenue per volume unit to check whether despite the lower volume more fees have been aggregated. We again compare Almanak pools and other pools with fees/volume on a daily basis. Both groups have seen an increase when looking at the pre-trial period of 90 days and the ongoing trial period. Other pools have 1.45x the fees per volume, whereas Almanak pools boasted 2.30x in comparison. All data is retrieved from the Bancor Analytics Dashboard under Daily Fees and Daily Volume.
perhaps i am naive thinking that recommendations like this can provide any additional value
“new swapping fee 0.0791% (from 0.5000%)”
We are happy to outline the idea of attracting volume to generate more fees vs. restricting value extraction through arbitrage, which is one of our key mantras in the trial period. Could you clarify your point made here? Do you think the swapping fees are too low/improbable?
Let us know whether you have any additional questions regarding this proposal or the general methodology in the other proposal here!