Proposal to Increase Trading Volumes for Panda/Rhino/Bamboo on Pancake Swap

Nobody is happy with the way things have turned out for Panda; however, it is just the beginning of the franchise and things are far from over. Something beautiful about the current Panda situation is that the future of the franchise is in the hands of the community - it is up to us to decide what we want, and how we want to get there. There is a lot of growth ahead of us and anyone who wants to have a say can make their voice heard.

Getting our tokens listed on Coin Gecko and Coin Market Cap was attempted early on in the franchise, but unfortunately due to BSC node issues it seems like only the volume on Pancake Swap is counted when applying for listings. Since the majority of Panda/Rhino/Bamboo volume is on Panda Swap we were denied a listing while many weaker projects got through.

Although I don’t think getting listed now will have a massive initial benefit; it is very important when thinking long-term, and it should be done before any sort of hard-synth roll out. For this reason, I propose we increase volume for our tokens on Pancake Swap, which in turn, should allow us to get listed.

A good way to get this volume would be to incentivize trading between exchanges via arbitrage opportunities which can easily be created through the following steps:

  1. Add 50k liquidity from treasury to the Panda/BNB and Rhino/BNB pools on Pancake swap.

  2. Create another pool on Pancake Swap with 50k liquidity from the treasury for Bamboo/BNB.

  3. Boost Pool Weights for these three Pancake pools on Panda farms to incentivize liquidity:

• Panda/BNB - 40,000
• Rhino/BNB - 30,000
• Bamboo/BNB - 10,000

  1. Ensure treasury LPs cannot be staked on farms.

This should create arbitrage opportunities between Pancake Swap and Panda Swap, and hopefully generate enough volume that it will be worth re-applying for listings with Coin Gecko and Coin Market Cap consecutively. Then we can focus on the more interesting and experimental future of hard-synths on Panda.

I think it’s worth noting that even if we fail to get listed after implementing these changes, they will still be beneficial for the Panda ecosystem by hopefully attracting outside attention and liquidity to the project. If anyone has any thoughts or suggestions please comment below. It would be nice to see more discussion around creating a successful future for this franchise.

11 Likes

Hi, I enjoyed reading this proposal and would concur the need to increase volume on PancakeSwap, the prescribed way looks to be a nice feasible option!

I’ll also add having Panda’s governance in motion ASAP will increase ownership sentiment and great ideas, such as this one proposed, will emerge with frequency!

The obvious question is, is there a way to count PandaSwap volume in conjunction with PancakeSwap for CoinGecko’s application?

Thank you! I agree with you on the governance for Panda, I think it will certainly create more positive sentiment and conceptualization around the franchise.

I’m not sure whether we are able to count the volume for both PandaSwap and PancakeSwap. All I know is there are some technical issues, but somehow PancakeSwap was able to solve them with the help of TheGraph team.

1 Like

If there was a way to do it, it would have already been counted and we wouldn’t need this measure in the first place.

Nice work cookie, I didn’t know about doing this in order to create an arbitrage opportunity.

1 Like

@cookies

Hello. As an introduction, I have participated in all 3 farms to date and my holdings are as follows: pnda>baocx>bao. I state this to show that i have been an active participant in the bao franchise and want the best for the community and myself.

While the spirit of your proposal is admirable, i disagree with direction…the goal of getting listed on coingecko/coinmarketcap.

I do not believe it is in the best interest of the pnda franchise to drive new users to the platform to it AT THIS TIME. Reason: There is no product…only a farm which has been out for a while (no more initial hype) and a horrible pnda chart that would scare any new investor away.

In my opinion, it would be best to time our listing on coin gecko/marketcap with the launch of synths on pnda (issues with bsc, new piedao code, other infrastructure issues = timing unknown)…the bao team would be best to be able to schedule this.

Having said that and putting my opinions aside…if we were to implement your proposal, i have a number of observations/questions:

  • you stated there may not be very much inital benefit…why do you think this? Perhaps our thinking is more aligned than i realized.

  • why do you believe we need a listing NOW (as oposed to listing when synths are launched)? We are at least a few months out from launching anything on pnda (and could be MUCH longer depending on what the community prioritizes between mainnet/xdai/bsc…not to mention maintenance on Polly).

  • you propose using $150k to create/bolster pancakeswap pools in an effort to stimulate trading volume via arbitrage opportunities…isnt that already present with the current pools? Even if there was a significant abritrage opportunity available and it does stimulate trading volume…shouldnt that volume disappear when the abritrage window has been closed? Once closed volume would stabilize, but now volume would be split between pandaswap and pancakeswap?

  • Funds used from the treasury…which treasury? I do not know if each franchise has a seperate treasury or if its just one global bao treasury.

    • if only a global bao treasury, you need to ask yourself why a bao holder with no pnda would support your proposal (why i believe the recent tbao proposal failed…no benefit for pnda holders with no baocx…who have bao voting power)
  • looking at the pnda chart, this has been a farm and dump coin. It is highly likely that this initial $150k injection would face large IL…would community members be comfortable losing a large % to IL (loss of 50% 75% even higher?)?

    • Could these funds be used in a more prudent way to get at least a positive ROI (eg. Polly indexes)?

Just my thoughts.

4 Likes

Thank you for your thoughtful comment it is greatly appreciated, and I think you made some great points. Similar to you I have participated in all the farms to date and also want what is best for the entire community. Panda is not my largest holding out of the three tokens, but I would still like to see it succeed.

I understand why you think it would be better to wait until a product launch to incentive more users, and perhaps you are correct - why would people want to farm what appears to be a dying token with no use case? That being said, throughout the entire “Bao Project” the narrative has basically been farming franchise tokens with the promise of indexes and synthetics which can be minted using said tokens in the future. So, these farms are not without purpose. In theory they exist so you can save up a stack to mint synthetic assets with. Unfortunately, these high yield farms tend to attract people who farm and dump for a profit and don’t care about the projects’ goals. This maybe why its better to have a use case for the tokens in place before farming starts, or before “advertising” the project – so I do see your point.

My reasoning in regards to getting panda/rhino/bamboo listed before indexes and synthetics are released are as follows:

  1. It will add some legitimacy to a project in a very “scam heavy” environment, which could incentivize more people to take part in farming panda before and after the launch of products on the franchise.

  2. I think getting more new people to farm panda is a good idea because many of the people currently farming on panda simply come from the bao ecosystem. By increasing the pool weight for some pancake pools this will allow for some newcomers to enjoy high yield farming opportunities before synthetics launch.

  3. If increasing volume and TVL is successful and leads to the listing of our tokens then I would expect the price of panda to increase, which would benefit farmers who wish to mint synthetics using their farmed panda. This may ease the pain for people who suffered heavy IL early on.

I think that answers at least one of your questions, but you had several more which I will do my best to answer as well.

• you stated there may not be very much initial benefit…why do you think this? Perhaps our thinking is more aligned than i realized.

  • I think that if the increase in volume for pancakeswap using arbitrage doesn’t help us get listed on coingecko then there will be little initial benefit, other then some new farms with higher rewards. In other words, we may not get any newcomers to the ecosystem. I think the greatest initial benefit would be the addition of new users to the ecosystem because without a community there is no point. I know there is a no advertising or shilling vibe in the bao community, which is good, but more than anything getting listed is just making panda accessible to more people. I don’t think you can even trade panda or rhino on pancakeswap V2. If you didn’t hear about panda through bao it is unlikely you heard of it at all.

• you propose using $150k to create/bolster pancakeswap pools in an effort to stimulate trading volume via arbitrage opportunities…isnt that already present with the current pools? Even if there was a significant abritrage opportunity available and it does stimulate trading volume…shouldnt that volume disappear when the abritrage window has been closed? Once closed volume would stabilize, but now volume would be split between pandaswap and pancakeswap?

  • Yes, I believe you are correct. However, I don’t think there is much liquidity in the pancake pools and I also do not think that liquidity has been migrated to pancake V2 yet. It would be nice to actually have our tokens listed on pancakeswap V2. Currently they do not exist on pancake V2 and you need to paste the contract address on V1. I think the point is to have the volume split between pandaswap and pancakeswap in order to get listed because they will not look at pandaswap volume. Hopefully, the initial volume is enough to get listed which should lead to more volume over time.

• Funds used from the treasury…which treasury? I do not know if each franchise has a seperate treasury or if its just one global bao treasury.

  • You are right there is only one Bao treasury but according to the tokenomics page (Distribution / Tokenomics - Bao Finance) 70% of the initial 250,000,000 panda preprint will be used for community voted/future incentives. Unfortunately, I did not think of this previously and now I realize that 175,000,000 panda is only worth slightly over 100k at today’s panda prices. Perhaps it is only worth adding liquidity to the current panda and rhino pools and waiting to get bamboo listed until sometime in the future.

• looking at the pnda chart, this has been a farm and dump coin. It is highly likely that this initial $150k injection would face large IL…would community members be comfortable losing a large % to IL (loss of 50% 75% even higher?)?

  • Impermanent loss is likely, but if the initial seeding of liquidity serves its purpose is the loss worth it? I don’t know, but it is worth discussing.

Thanks again for your comment - this is the kind of discussion that needs to occur around the panda franchise.

3 Likes

Good read.

I think we are generally in agreement on most individual points…the only thing that we are somewhat far apart on is the TIMING.

However, at the end of your post you brought up the amount of money available in the treasury…approx $100k. For me this is a deal breaker. Putting this specific proposal aside, i would not be in favour of ANY proposal that would use our entire bankroll in one shot, leaving nothing left for future implementations (eg. To incentivise index/synth minting).

3 Likes

Your point about the panda governance fund is a good one. The only other option I see is using some of the bao treasury to seed the pools. I know there is over $1,000,000 in fees collected so far… I’m curious if the bao community would be in favour of this considering a lot of bao farmers also farm panda.

1 Like

In the wallet address that collect LP fees from deposit and withdrawal (Binance Smart Chain Token Holdings 0x8f5d46fcadeca93356b70f40858219bb1fbf6088 information) we are good to support this proposal.

In addition to that, the treasury would still hold those liquidities in the Pancake swap protocol, converting individual assets to CAKE LP. So it is more an asset movement in terms of treasury than anything else. It is not “spent” as treasury still hold those liquidities.

4 Likes

This whole read made me reconsider my initial reply to the original post. Thanks for the detailed comments @JohnJohn and @Cookies

I’m quite heavy on Panda right now, and while I do want it to grow, patience might be the solution to this timing issue. Our DAO has currently no product to show for, so in my eyes it seems be beneficial to wait until we at least our synths on Polygon, that way, new and old liquidity providers can get a glimpse to what the future holds for Panda on BSC, and perhaps fixing the issue surrounding farming and dumping the token.

I do recommend the community to wait until we have our product on Polygon to show for, and also being patient until governance for Panda is implemented. Then I’m all for to incentivize new liquidity on pancakeswap v2.

This is just my vision but I’d love to read feedback on it.

Good proposal thanks @Cookies

This is 100% required and in my mind a sound use of funds. Getting listed prior to launching the flagship product suite is critical as a whole swathe of new users will seek out the protocol, and the first place they will do that is Coingecko and CMC.

1 Like

Agree on this sequencing. i.e. show the success of this protocol on Polygon, then add liquidity to $PNDA prior to replicating product suite on BSC

It is natural for the price to bottom which is where I think we are at now for 2 reasons on the supply side;

  1. The emission schedule naturally declines over time (so less farming and dumping, particularly given 95% lockup)
  2. As the price moved lower you would have seen more users opting to hold their $PNDA (or stake in $BAMBOO) because the price is low and they understand the pending catalysts
2 Likes

I think timing is important here, we should list prior launching the product on bsc, but also important to have dao to vote on new incentives. From my point of view (as I have no more visibility other than discord) l we should aim to list, and take this concept to proposal which will take at least 4 weeks. After polly finance the team would not be able jump deliver the product to bsc so that may be another 8 -12 weeks so that leaves enough time to 4 - 8 weeks for community buildup. Again, these timelines are only my guesstimates but listing, vote, products is the rough order i think we should aim for

I agree with this sequencing as well.

I agree with you and I’m also interested in the timing of things. For example, in what order will indexes be launching for each chain? Will it be based on liquidity ie. Mainnet > bsc > xdai and how long will each launch take? I think the answers for these questions are likely unknown, but its good to think about. We probably have a good amount of time before the launch on bsc but I will talk to a community manager and see about writing up a more formal proposal soon so we can move this to a vote.

I think BSC is more technology challenge as there are some underlying challenges and these need to be solved by BSC. I assume the galaxy team is aware what that is and when the chain is ready to launch soft synths.