- Range positioning for your capital. In the sweet spot, there is higher fee returns but higher impermanent loss (IL).
- Range orders are possible. If the price goes out of range, it is effectively a limit order (but you need to remove liquidity before price comes back within range)
- LP tokens will be NFTs instead of ERC20s. This will likely affect the way liquidity mining is done currently, or they'll move to Sushi/remain on Uni v2.
- Moving to optimism L2 in the future. This would lower gas for all DApps on Ethereum.
- More fee options for LPs
- Hint of protocol fees for UNI holders
- Business source license perhaps to disincentivize copies like Sushi
Overall, this seems like a fairly substantial change. It will probably take time for the ecosystem around this to mature. Excited for the long-term implications of this update.
- "This would lower gas for all DApps on Ethereum" not really, the same amount of gas will still be used by other applications. However, the average gas _price_ will probably go down, as current Uniswap usage raises the gas price as people try to get their transactions executed faster.
The argument on the other side is that this is a matter of what's good for society in the long-term. For example, supporting a law that says "let's take all the money of class X and give it to the rest" would always be "in the interest" of the majority in the short term. That doesn't make it right.
To the parent's comment though, bonobos don't actually form patrols and they tend to avoid contact with other groups, so intra-group conflict is lower for bonobos than chimpanzees.
How can you use something that isn't built to build the same thing unless you're using a time machine? I suppose once Colony is in production, you can create a Colony clone using Colony.
It's called bootstrapping, would indeed be interesting if they used there own platform to build it, or run it in a way right now that allows them to migrate to Colony as early as possible. As long as it does not work for there needs, it's not clear why it would be good enough for anyone else.
It sound similar to what you do with one important distinction. "Freelancers" (I am using this term loosely since it seems like your organization gives you much more flexibility than traditional freelancers would get) earn a salary/income whereas in a Colony, the freelancers earn a tokens that represent future earnings potential in a colony i.e. share of revenue/profits. This way, you not only bring work to the Colony but completing it gives you a stake in your Colony.
Interesting. In a sense we do get a stake in the company, which is a missing piece of the puzzle. The profits are put into a pot and you get a share equal to the days you worked. Then people can use an internal crowd funding platform (CoBudget) to decide where to invest this money, which could include "please give it all to me".
So I guess this is to some degree integrated into our digitally enabled but relatively analog model.
Instead of such a knee-jerk reaction to crypto, perhaps you can ask if the crypto token involved makes sense in this use case. If it doesn't, like in 99% of the cases, you can dismiss it then. Colony, IMHO, is one of the few projects where it does make sense to have a token.
If it's like Assembly, the coins/tokens themselves don't have value _per se_, they just represent ownership. Basically, in this case, it's acting more of a ledger to represent equity than as the commodity it's typically used as.
An example:
UserA posts a great idea, and wants help to implement it. UserA is an MBA, has a business plan, a rough idea of execution, etc., but is not a programmer, or a graphic designer, or anything like that. UserA realizes she needs help, so she posts bounties - with features relative to the importance of the success of the project. "Need a landing page" might be a feature, with tasks broken out like "design a logo", "build a wireframe in Sketch", "convert Sketch wireframe to React frontend", etc. Each of those tasks will have a value, represented by Ether.
UserB, a graphic designer comes up with the perfect logo, which is worth 100 ether. User C, a frontend developer picks up the wireframe task, gets consensus, and then bangs out the React work, for a total of 250 ether. Other work gets done and an MVP is launched. The MVP was built, and a total of 5,000 ether were distributed as bounties were claimed and completed. User B has gone on to do a bunch of other graphic design tasks, and has a total of 600 ether, while User C left the project after completing the frontend work. The project's MVP launches, and makes $10,000 in profit. Because UserB has 600 ether, and 5,000 ether have been issued, UserB's share entitles him to ~12% of the profits, so he is disbursed a payment of $1200. UserC's share entitles him to $500.
As the project grows, UserB takes on more and more work, and more and more ether are issued. UserC doesn't ever come back on, but is still entitled to profits on the work they've done, though their share of ether will keep being diluted as the project goes on.
Hopefully I've been able to illustrate that the coin in this case is used not as currency itself, but as a representative stake in ownership.
Yeah, this seems very similar to how a Colony is envisioned to run, with a few extra considerations:
Each colony's native tokens act as a representation of equity as described above (more or less), entitling holders to a 'rewards' disbursement periodically - but they also may be employed by the colony for mechanisms of governance in the case of token-weighted voting.
Additionally, whenever someone makes an amount of tokens, they also are awarded an equal amount of reputation, which cannot be transferred and which decays over time. This score also confers influence in the colony for voting and dispute resolution, if the members of the colony wish to make their voting reputation weighted, or some combination of reputation and token-weighted.
Finally, to claim rewards, a user needs to have both reputation and tokens - this means that tokens themselves don't immediately entitle one to rewards; only those who actually contribute meaningful work to the colony (as evidenced by their reputation score) are entitled to proportional rewards.
Being suspicious or cautious, particularly considering the amount of people expressing the same sentiment in the comments, is not a knee-jerk reaction.
