Gateway Fund I: Pivoting from Pylon Swaps to Treasury Swaps

Nvm guess I misread the order/replies of the posts. Slightly confusing UI:)

This approach is extremely tax inefficient, this is country dependent but an airdrop is a taxable event in many countries and treated as income. Example here vs pylon swap there is no taxable event triggered by allocation purchase until sale of allocation.

I wouldn’t invest in this approach for the reason above, if I intend to invest in a project Iong term I want the taxable event to be on sale so I get taxable discount on profits obtained rather than upfront which is extremely capital inefficient.

Not sure the best way to solve this but if it’s a fund treat it more like an ETF with value tokenised and value accrued within a gateway fund token. I guess protocols like nebula will go a way to solving some of this problem.

1 Like

It’s a fair point, more voters doesn’t mean a better governance overall, personally I would prefer not to burn some of my staked MINE to be able to join, but perhaps it wouldn’t amount to much.

1 Like

first respect for this broad architecture and flow! took me days to digest this…lol, still am :slight_smile: so i hope i’m putting it here with clarity and understanding of you :slightly_smiling_face:

i understand your point of view about the challenge or more like it the impossibility to satisfy everyone when it comes to IDOs (pylon swap) and allocations and maintain quality. with that the issue is not with the reality but with the expectations of people, expectations can be altered with clarity :slight_smile: . a good example for that would be with the lossless pools for NFTs, people understand there is a certain amount of NFTs and it is by lottery. so it is about giving a clear msg about the amount of new project we aim to bring in order to maintain that level of integrity and not judged by cheap market standards :slight_smile: .

how do we manage the lottery is something i have been experiencing on different launchpads and i see some things i love and think it might be helpful in our case, like locking MINE for a certain period of years gives certain multipliers of tickets in the UST- DP allocation lottery. this is done for example by PAID network and it also rebalanced the system between lower tier holders and top tiers holders, i experienced it first hand when i decided to lock my tokens for 5 years and now i get 2-3x the allocation. this is just one example of time in the equation. they also provide a smaller multiplier to people who hodl the IDO tokens to support building a community for these projects.

with your approach i felt like we are taking something from the mine stakers (pylon swaps) and that is the launchpad feature which i think is very important to a lot of people. so i have an idea that might incorporate both sides. if we take your idea of providing ust and receiving DP token to create liquidity and combine it with MINE stakers to determine the allocation each staker can contribute. this allows the MINE stakers (and maybe LP-don’t see why they are excluded) to fund the pylon LP and also be a launchpad.

another beautiful aspect i love is the airdrops of multiple projects for MINE stakers, it takes the lossless pools and gives a much broader exposure to projects, it is taking pancakeswap and improve upon it 10 folds. this feature can also be affected by the time factor of locked MINE.

last sharing of another form of launchpad is KAI starter, there we lock KAI for 1 year and we get 1 DKAI per 1k KAI locked and for each IDO we have an option to get FCFS allocation with a max contribution, this cost a certain amount of DKAI so it takes time to save up those tokens. the second option is guaranteed allocation and this cost a much higher amount of DKAI. this method is great as well since one needs to choose which projects he or she wants to take part in and if they will specd DKAI for FCFS or guaranteed allocation. the downside with this method is that it favors whales greatly, so again the option of locking tokens for certain periods of time can balance it.

if i mangled your idea pls let me know…lol… i tried to bring more and not negate :slight_smile:

I think this is a non-issue since you will have full-control when to claim those airdrop tokens.
You could choose to accumulate it over let’s say 12 month and claim all at once - at least in my country this specific transaction will mark the taxable event.

The more I think about it, @Chiraag makes a great point (and likely thought out by Woojin). If we create a form of Mine staking requirement for access to GFI, we ultimately undermine the direction Pylon is heading and the ability for Mine to transcend into the governance token it is meant to be. I feel this applies to all pools. I now feel that the burn mechanism is the best approach.

1 Like

I can understand the concern and agree that forcing voters won’t help to have better governance but, as a current staker, if I am to deposit into the pool I’ll have to make a choice between losing voting power or depositing less and using that to buy the required MINE, and sure that’s okay nothing wrong with that.

What sort of weirds me out is that it’s common for protocols to reward users with governance power as those should be the most interested in good governance, here it feels we’re doing the opposite, taking voting power away from those participating in the pools.

1 Like

While creating more features to support the value of the token or to be able to compete with other similar protocols is indeed very important, at times like this I believed It would be better to focus more on how to make stakers feel they’re having privilege than those who didn’t hodl or stake MINE. Otherwise, there is no use in having tons of features but no one is willing to hodl the protocol native token, or why bother to have the native token in the first place.

Not sure if this is gonna be helpful or not since I’m not an expert.

The Gateway Fund will have nearly 20% yield generated from UST right? from that 20% can we split it into something like this: 5% directly to MINE stakers and the rest 95% to the fund to participate in the IDO or whatever according to the purpose of each fund.

Assuming that what aforementioned is possible, it would be great if MINE stakers can receive their share of those yields in form of xaUST (a special kind of aUST but just for MINE stakers) which will allow them to receive a boost to get more IDO token when they deposit xaUST into any Pylon Pools or they can choose to swap it with the aUST or even split it into normal aUST part and the boost part through Prism (not sure if this is possible though). With xaUST, there is some tangible benefit for the MINE stakers now so the stakers will be more willing to hodl, stake and not sell the MINE token. Besides those without MINE token will want to have their hand on it because of this benefit and this will also help the price to go up.

In the future, if the fund is large enough, maybe the MINE stakers will kinda have their little passive income through this 5% yield. With xaUST, buyback, burn mechanism, and airdrops MINE token are more appealing to hodl now.

With this idea, we can satisfy MINE stakers while still keeping the Pylon concept of no MINE staking requirement to access the pool.

Ps. It’s would be great if we can use this method with the pylon pools as well.

1 Like

Something to think about here related to RionLions comment on Todays AMA. It really complicates things if people can mint Gateway Fund DP tokens indefinitely people as who buy in later will perhaps get a better deal than people who buy in early. This can be mitigated by weighting allocations. But another way you could mitigate this is by disallowing minting after a certain period. If you disallowed minting after a certain period and made it so DP tokens held the yield that the fund generated it would increase the interoperability of the DP token and give it some interesting tokenomics where the underlying value of the DP token would constantly go up as the fund is able to purchase cheap presale tokens.

Also If you planned to use these tokens as collateral in the future they would be more useful/attractive if the DP tokens accrued value natively as opposed to rewards being paid to holders . That way DP tokens can be loaned out and accrue value while loaned.

Just some food for thought. Exciting stuff looking forward to see how this develops!

1 Like

can you add a link to the ama recorded?


That’s great for your country. In other countries that’s tax fraud – you earn the income when you have the option to claim it, not just when it’s claimed.

So unless the proposal pays to relocate everyone, this just makes things worse.

Wouldn’t this limit the fund growth? If you can’t mint more, how would you increase the deposits?

Perhaps it’s better to use an approach like aUST, the DP token price changes with it’s content… so initially it will be fixed because it will be 1:1 with depositted UST (or whatever ratio is choosen) but as the fund uses the UST and generates value for holders, it’s TVL increases and with it the DP price, so now the ratio changes and perhaps 1 UST only mints 0.97 DP (just an example, adjusted to the ratio decided).

Can anyone help me to understand what is best option for airdrops for MINE stakers, i have a bit claimable tokens and i cannot figure out what next step is, do i need to rea-stake those three different tokens or what?
Thank you

Pylon’s telegram channel would be the most suited place for this conversation.