Call for Input: Shaping Moonriver's DeFi Strategy

Governance
10

I’m in full support of this proposal. A new bridge partner / GMP provider for Moonriver is very much needed following Multichain, and tablestakes for a successful ecosystem. The Moonriver community is a resiliant one and it makes me happy to see effort being put in to get the ecosystem back on its feet.

I also agree that a liquidity incentives campaign + a new CL DEX would be needed to support these new assets. Initial values seem appropriate. Would we be pulling Gauntlet into incentives management or would this be run by the grants committee/Foundation?

11

Given the prevailing market conditions and the current state of Kusama and the Moonriver Network, we believe that the foundation deploying $1,750,000 worth of $MOVR as incentives over the next six months is a justifiable amount.

Given the operational dynamics of the network, we recommend allocating the majority of these funds towards a single decentralized exchange (DEX) and lending platform, namely Moonwell. Moonwell’s substantial audience, particularly on Base, positions it as a pivotal player in revitalising Moonriver.

Drawing from the lessons of Moonbeam Ignite #1, dispersing funds across multiple platforms risks diluting impact rather than enhancing it. Hence, we propose allocating $650,000 worth of $MOVR to Moonwell and one exchange, ensuring the establishment of a robust network for borrowing and trading.

The remaining $450,000 should be earmarked for projects interested in building on or migrating to the network, with a cap of $100,000 per participant. This strategy fosters a competitive environment conducive to development and network presence.

For any exchange coming, keep in mind that Algebra liquidity engine is not available as it is exclusively owned by StellaSwap and cannot be implemented to any other project.

– Team Beamswap

12

Hi all,

I wanted to reach out on this topic from Enosys.

We sent in a proposal last month that covered launching an indexer, multisig, CL CFAMM with native incentives, and bridge to Moonriver.

We currently run a suite of products on the Flare Network and their Canary Network, Songbird. We have been building on Songbird for over 2 years now and have fully incorporated Canary Networks into our development funnel. We are looking to expand that outward to new Canary Networks to create the first multichain Canary Network ecosystem. We would be looking to bring our two communities of Canary Network users together which would encourage the building of Canary cross-chain infrastructure. We would also be looking to bridge assets both to and from Moonriver, including our own established incentives.

I’m not sure if someone can find our proposal that was sent through the foundation grant application system, but I would be happy to send it through again.

Here is the link to the Proposed Milestones from the proposal

1 Like
13

Follow up on this, I would ask that the teams that have indicated interest in deploying a Concentrated Liquidity (V3) AMM capability on Moonriver to create a forum post with their proposal:

@beamswapio
@x0s0l
@thanasimos_enosys

Please look at past ecosystem grant proposals and the guidelines from the Interim Grants Program doc in the section “MBGP Idea typically includes” and use this structure.

Please post your proposals under here before the end of this week (April 27, 2024):

The Moonbeam Grant Committee has graciously agreed to assist in this process and will review the proposals. As needed, they may engage with teams to ask further questions before making a recommendation.

There will be a follow up here with a timeline for the review period and next steps.

14

Apologies for the delay in updates on this thread. My understanding is that the grants committee will hold a vote in the next few days with regards to the grant proposals. The outcome will be posted following that.

1 Like
15

Over the past 30 days, the Grants Committee has diligently evaluated proposals submitted by the Beamswap , Enosys and Solarbeam teams. This process involved a thorough review, followed by a series of follow-up questions and constructive improvement suggestions to each team. After that, the Committee had internal discussions and held a voting process. We are pleased to announce that, upon conclusion of the vote, the Committee has decided to award the grant to @Beamswap. Congratulations to the Beamswap team on their successful proposal!

The next steps will be shared with the Beamswap team over the next few days.

7 Likes
16

It was a strange decision (IMO ofc.) Honestly, I still can’t wrap my head around how it’s possible to miss out on a team like Enosys. It’s a pity that it couldn’t have been possible to find a compromise solution for all three to attract more value to the network.

1 Like
17

hey, I believe Enosys can still apply for a community committee grant, which covers amounts up to $250k > Grants Program Application | Moonbeam

18

We sent in an application months ago, but never heard anything back despite multiple enquiries, which led to our application for this initiative after it was brought to our attention by our friends at Moonwell.

We would be willing to have that conversation though, should your governance board want to reach back out.

Regardless, best of luck with the initiative.

2 Likes
19

Thank you all for your trust in Beamswap.

We intend to roll out the MVP solution within the next two weeks and will keep everyone informed through our social channels and this forum.

Team Beamswap

2 Likes
20

Its nice to see MoonRiver is a Centralized Network.

MoonRivers People dont want Beamswap.

MoonBeam foundation wants Beamswap.

Enosys was a way better idea

Opening the doors to FLR and Songbird

But better yet you guys failed to see the bigger picture of layer zero with solarbeam.

A community led chain where the community has no voice.

Great Job Guys
-CryptoAbe

21

It’s a decision made by 9 Grants Committee members, which consist of 6 non-foundation members and 3 foundation members who were chosen after the community vote - so, it is not something decided solely by the foundation. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by saying the community has no choice, etc

as for Enosys, they indeed have the choice to apply for community grants, and after consideration by the committee members, they can receive the grant

22

The centralization is so hardcore.

-GLMR holders make the decisions for MoonRiver.

Moonbeam controls MoonRiver- with the current model.

Which is supposted to be a community led chain. What community is it? MoonRiver or MoonBeam?

So let me explain this.

Moonriver is about to split into 2 parts, which it primarily has.

The MoonRiver Centralized Community- which is 9 guys using GLMR to control our ecosystem that Voted For BeamSwap.

The MoonRiver Decentralized Community- the ones that actually participate inside the moonriver ecosystem and use it.

I am part of the decentralized community and will not be using beamswap. I do not support this.

The people of moonriver have no voice when it comes to our current model, because we let moonbeam control our destination.

This is not how you build a community led chain. Polkadot still dont get either with open governance- there is countless x post on people who do not feel part of dot because their vote does not count. Its no different inside MoonRiver.

“Stop the Grant” We need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better solution to this. But a solution that involves the actual community.

-Improvement To Change The Fate Of Our Ecosystem-

We need a new Governance Model First that includes,

-DAPP Parties that live on the current network- that have a active community

-MoonRiver Community Members out side those DAPPs

The problem with using a Token(DOT,GLMR,Movr) for governance is the small man at the bottom has no voice when your dealing with low token supply’s. We need to toss the token model and make votes count in a community led chain.

A two part solution is needed that lives inside MoonRiver. Should be the ones who make the votes for our next improvement without using tokens to vote.

We have to fix this now.

Through this we will grow a community led chain. If you do this MoonRiver will grow.

-MoonRiver Network Needs It Own Forum.

We face the same problems of Open Gov, yet we do not look to improve off their failure.

We fail to innovate because we fail to come up with enough ideas to innovate together. Tho it must be community supported in a community led chain.

Thankyou

CryptoAbe

23

Hey @turrizt, was just wondering if anyone over there had looked at our proposal that was sent back in February. I’m not sure if this is something being considered, been rejected, or needs to be submitted again as thus far no one has been willing to engage on the topic.

Although, it is far less compelling of an idea to be immediately put at a disadvantage to a competing product that will be passing out free network incentives to users. But, our current users were quite excited by the idea of using our products on Moonriver and so we would still be willing to consider adding it to our roadmap if you wanted to have the conversation.

24

Hey @cryptoabe - I’m sorry you feel that this initiative is headed in the wrong direction.

There was a community vote earlier this year where MOVR token holders approved the use of some of the Parachain Bond Reserve allocation to fund participation in the Axelar Amplifier program.

The idea behind this proposal is to build on top of the Axelar initiative, again using some of the Parachain Bond Reserve allocation to fund it. Note that we will soon be asking MOVR token holders to vote to ratify the use of MOVR from the Parachain Bond Reserve to fund the Beamswap grant as well as allocations to other projects such as Moonwell. Things cannot proceed until the blessing of the Moonriver community is achieved through that vote.

I realize that you feel that the entire governance mechanism of using tokens to vote is not a good model but unfortunately, it’s the model we have currently. This also has been the model since both chains were launched.

At the Moonbeam Foundation, our mission is to foster the development and adoption of the Moonbeam and Moonriver networks. Part of this is evolving our governance model in a way that allows the communities to become more involved. Any input community members have in terms of how things could be improved is always welcome but please come with constructive suggestions.

Completely reworking the entire governance model in the protocol would both be very time consuming and expensive but if you or others in the community would like to help develop a detailed specification for the community to comment on, please go ahead and do so.

However, in discussions with various community members earlier this year, the general feedback was that the community should move urgently to re-establish a major bridge/GMP protocol and reignite activity. Thus my personal opinion is that the community does not want to wait a year or more while a new governance system is researched and developed.

With regards to having different forums and other community services to support Moonriver vs Moonbeam - the Moonbeam Foundation has considered this but in the end, the cons seem to outweigh the benefits. For one thing, there are real cost savings that are realized by being able to re-use the same infrastructure, team members, etc. Secondly, there would be a lot of repetition of posts relating to core protocol development updates, etc.

One last point of consideration: I would like to remind the community with regards to the Moonbeam Foundation’s policy on participation in Governance detailed here. If you would like to become more active and drive more impact in the Moonriver governance process, I would encourage you to become a community delegate.

Thank you!

4 Likes
25

I would imagine it was probably looked at but I will follow up with the grants team on this and circle back.

26

@Trilemma / @majin_moonwell - wondering if you have a perspective around the “additional thoughts” area of beamswap’s proposal:

Would Moonwell be interested in participating? Do you have comments on the proportion of grants between DEX, lending and potentially other teams?

27

As a Moonwell Apollo delegate, I believe that our community would strongly support this initiative. A Concentrated Liquidity V3 AMM would significantly enhance capital efficiency and liquidity depth on Moonriver, which is essential as we expand markets and support new assets.

If awarded a grant, the Moonwell Apollo DAO would use the allocated MOVR to incentivize supply in our existing MOVR, xcKSM, and FRAX markets. In the wake of last year’s Multichain exploit, our community is eager to support new assets and revitalize activity. With the upcoming Axelar Amplifier program, we would prioritize deploying new markets for Axelar-bridged assets and incentivizing them with grant MOVR to swiftly build liquidity.

The requested amounts appear reasonable, and it’s encouraging to see a portion set aside for projects interested in building on or migrating to Moonriver. While a robust DEX and lending protocol are foundational for a successful ecosystem, we also need to encourage others to build on Moonriver.

The Moonwell Apollo DAO looks forward to more specific details and a formal governance proposal. We are excited to participate in this initiative to catalyze growth and activity on Moonriver.

28

A governance vote is up to formally approve the use of MOVR from the parachain bond reserve.

See the full proposal here.

1 Like
29

[Referendum MR50] Moonriver <> Axelar Integration
Hi Aaron, I still have 13movr blocked from the vote from 0x07959111dc21ff888f1671bd08c4765758a2e87e and I would like to return them