Atom Wars: an alternative take

[dneorej-persistence]

Thanks for this @JohnMontagu - mostly aligned with these propositions. Even if it makes everything a bit more complex to implement, I believe they should seriously be considered as they would be beneficial for ATOM and ATOM holders.

@JohnMontagu

However, it’s worth pointing out that this increased demand on stATOM hinges on the success of Atom Wars and one could argue that sidelining other LSTs to favour stATOM gets in the way of that success, considering that LSD providers represent the majority of the demand side ( bidders) of Atom Wars.

I think this is a very good observation.

@JohnMontagu

→ A period of 2 months might be more suitable as it allows projects to benefit from borrowed capital and gives them enough time to un-bond.

I agree on this and would even dare to go further saying that the duration could be part of the proposal. For some things, even 2 months might not make a lot of sense. Renting liquidity for a year for example should be possible. Always keeping in mind it’s better to play long-term games with long term people.

@JohnMontagu

When protocols make their bid, they should offer up a portion of their revenue in addition to the full revenue generated from the use case.
A good example of this already exists in Prop 853, where pStake offered to waive protocol fees and share 15% of all stkATOM revenue in return for POL from the community pool.

Makes a lot of sense to me!