HUNGRY COW Second Utility! ! ! DASHBOARD Lock up DEX USER Wide Liquidity Boost provision

[Lourde]

question so now that we have the hungry cows nfts with the guaranteed boost amount attached to them have the developers thought about creating a dashboard for all the users of the Dex to sign in with and attach their wallet, and the dashboard could have a place for excess hungry cows to be staked and after staking those hungry cows that are not being utilized you can make those cows percentages available to the users of the dex and they can pay a fee for the percentage guarantee/lock in, and you could take all of the staked hungry cow nfts and batch them in groups example s like 7% to 12% for 10ada, 13% to 15% for 12 Ada, 15% to 20% for 17 Ada, and charge different values of ADA to lock in that nft for a per epoch fee of that guaranteed percentage, and when they pay as an example 23.5 Ada for the 20% to 25% range if there are 40 nfts staked in range from 20 to 21 to 21.5 to 23 to 24.06 to 25.49 the individual who pays the Ada for a guaranteed percentage will fall within that range and they will be assigned that nft for that one epoch.
Additionally if they want to extend the locked in guaranteed boost they can do a drop-down box choice of up to six epochs which should be 30 days and pay the fee and they’re locked in for that month on the nft boost. With that the payout could go to one big treasury specifically for the boost providers and they could receive token payments through a percentage of the boost usage on the Dex (ie. 2.5%) and the rest goes to the muesli swap project R&D. This this would provide a secondary utility for the nft and also benefit the greater community of the muesli swap Dex users as well as the utility NFT holders …add value, and with it being able to be a guaranteed range value they can get anywhere from the lowest to the highest based off of a randomly generated number lottery system of whatever nfts are still open within that range of percentages and adding in the per epoch payment that would deter big time whales from hogging a 90% or a 75% nft and after the original contract is expired that nft can go into a cool down period of one epoch, that way the whales or the greedy can’t go back in and grab that same one, thus the reason for the randomly generated range finder so to speak. … This idea has been bothering me for a while I didn’t know where else to put it and I didn’t know if anybody ever brought it up but I’ll just leave this right here thank you for reading if you did I’m sorry it was so long… Good Moooo ning

So this bundle is just my attempt at an info graphic
So we can say we have 1 bundle or 2
I will go with 1 for this idea
we have a range of boost for 4 NFTs … 24% to 39% the extra decimals can be lagniappe (extra). So you can guarantee a boost of between 24 -39 for say 30 ADA
the more NFTs in that range can adjust the price like the more 24s you have the 30ADA can be lowered due to supply being more abundant on lower end of the bundle range… Ie. 27.55 ADA
Anyway the payment to lock in is 30 ADA and is including the 1st epoch (5 Days) …
Any additional epochs incur a charge up front ie. 10 ADA per additional epoch lock up. up to 6 epochs (30 Days)
Now Example Two… is the same just with two different tiered prices per block…
24 % boost 22 ADA
38-39 % boost 35 ADA
and you can apply that to
12.43 % - 17.59% = 15 ADA cost ,
18% -23.59% = 20 ADA cost
25.13%-30.65% = 28ADA Cost
39.25% - 45.89% = 42ADA Cost
etc…

Example 1.5 percent of locked up NFT boost usage yield (for every 100x earned from Boost guarantee sales, Boosters get 1.5x in the boost provision pot) can go to the NFT Boost Providers and the R&D side of Muesli gets the rest to build and reward the DEX users and MILK holders etc.

What do you think?

JUST ONE MORE THING…
Once you get the Code written out you can partner with the wallet providers to connect directly and the token claiming by the boost providers and HUNGRY COW STEAKING can occur within wallet … directly like make the wallets the dashboard kind of … with features for muesli DEX
Less like a plugin than a DEX assimilation with HUNGRY COWS

LATE ADDITION:
This Particular idea could be a Killer DEX feature that could make Muesli stand way out… Guaranteed Boost. And based off of metrics limit certain yield usages to special events like the 80%-90% only during Spring and Summer markets and during winter Retire them… Just an example… as well as Short TERM Boosting Guaranteed 72 hr Boosting Instead of Full on 5 days (epoch) Smart/Contract Timer Im guessing …

[kryptt]

I like this idea, it gives utility to people who might just be nft collectors and are uninterested in providing liquidity, while at the same time fulfilling their original objective…

[maustoth]

Good ideia, NFT stake is already working in COPI SPO, we need something like that!

[Plan_A]

Hi Lourde!

I love your idea

I have been thinking to something similar for quite some time. I will post here my ideas.

Option 1:
Borrowing the boost for a predetermined fee

This is as simple as it appears:

1. Alice has a which grants her 20% boost.
2. Alice does not want to sell her , but she wants to monetize with her.
3. Bob wants to use MuesliSwap yield farming, but he cannot afford to buy a .
4. Bob goes to MuesliSwap lending protocol and sees that Alice has offered her 20% boost for a good daily price (let us say 0.1 ADA/day).
5. Bob borrows Alice’s boost and Alice earns 0.1 ADA per day through her cow.

==========

Option 2:
Borrowing the boost for a dividend

Same scenario as before, but there is no fee. In this case, Alice gets a fraction of Bob’s rewards. So:

1. Bob has a capital of 1,000 ADA that he uses for yield farming with an APY of 36.5% for sake of simplicity (which means 0.1% = 1 ADA daily);
2. Alice lends her for a 20% dividend;
3. Bob borrows Alice’s and gets a 20% boost (daily rewards now are 1.2 ADA);
4. Having Alice and Bob agreed on a 20% dividend, the extra 0.2 ADA / day earned by the are split between the parties: 80% to Bob (0.16 ADA / day) and 20% to Alice (0.04 ADA / day).

==========

Option 3:
Boosting pools

In this case, are sent to boosting pools, which are closer to auctions than to liquidity pools, so don’t get misleaded by the name. In this case, a boosting pool has a minimum fee / dividend that will be payed by the borrowers to the lenders. Such value is defined at the moment of the creation of the pool and updated through voting of the lenders. In fact, Alice owns a share of the pool (I will quantify this after) and that share corresponds to her voting power.

The clear advantage with respect to the previous cases is that Alice can simply delegate her to the pool and forget it, without any need of management.

Let us say that pools are segmentated as a function of the boosting factor:

1. 0% - 10%;
2. 10% - 20% (Alice’s pool);
3. 20% - 30%;
4. …
5. 90% - 100%.

Let us say that there are 3 people in the pool, with boosting factors of 15%, 15% and 20% (this is Alice). Alice’s share, hence, is:

20 / (15 + 15 + 20) = 20 / 50 = 40%

And the pool’s boost is the average of the three of them:

(15 + 15 + 20) / 3 = 16.67%

Bob is interested in borrowing that 16.67% boost, so he needs to offer at least the minimum fee / dividend that is accepted by the smart contract. This is very important, because without lower bound in a scenario with few borrowers the borrower could offer a misery to the lenders, and the smart contract would automatically accept it. This is why these boosting pools look kinda like auctions: the minimum offer is set at the creation of the pool and updated through voting, the price at which the service is lended is the cheapest possible price for the borrower.

Let us say that we are dealing with a fee, for sake of simplicity. The minimum fee is 0.1 ADA / day, and Bob pledges 0.1 ADA / day.

Bob borrows the boost. Alice obtains 40% of Bob’s fees / dividends (0.04 ADA / day in the considered case).

Claire and David are interested in the boost as well. Remaining in track with the fee example, Claire pledges 0.15 ADA / day and David 0.2 ADA / day. These are their maximum offers, but there are 3 buyers for the service offered by 3 sellers, so the fee / dividend corresponds to the minimum accepted by the smart contract (0.1 ADA / day).

Claire borrows the second boost. Alice obtains 40% of Claire’s fees / dividends.
David borrows the third boost. Alice obtains 40% of David’s fees / dividends.

Enters Emelie, who wants to benefit from the boost too. She has to make a higher pledge than the others in order to benefit from it. For example, this could be the orderbook:

1. Bob: pledge of 0.1 ADA / day (corresponding to the daily fee);
2. Claire: pledge of 0.15 ADA / day;
3. David: pledge of 0.2 ADA / day.

Emilie pledges 0.25 ADA / day. Bob is kicked out, and the new fee is Claire’s: 0.15 ADA / day.

This option is the most interesting in my opinion because it offers two main advantages:

1. you do not need to manage the price, the market does it;
2. even if there are few borrowers, as long as there is a borrower per pool nobody stays without rewards.

==========

Thank you for reading till here.

Do you like my idea? Any comment, opinion and suggestion is welcome

[Lourde]

That was one of the most well presented expansions on an idea such as sharing boost that ive yet to read… I really like the auction approach. Borrowers will dictate the usage pricing by the bids… but its almost like Russian roulette if someone like a whale jumps in with multiple wallets at a greater sized bid so to speak like 50 ADA /day… and keep a collection of wallets in control of that pool… is there an idea to mitigate that? I see your thinking too… great idea !

[Plan_A]

Thank you for your comment, Lourde. Actually, I don’t think it’s going to be a problem

There are two scenarios where multiple wallets could be used for reward manipulation. Let us start from the first one.

In this case you have a “whale”, as you described it, with many wallets that actively tries to cut off other participants from delegating their addresses. This, in turn, could happen two scenarios.

The first whale scenario is when this entity wants to boost multiple addresses because it is going to use them for multiple delegations. This looks completely fine to me. I mean, I think that you cannot use the same cow for two liquidity pools because it is sent to the pool alongside with the liquidity.

The second whale scenario, instead, concerns multiple wallets that are meant to delegate to the same liquidity pool. Well, if you can just pay X amount of ADA per day, by using a single address for the delegation, why would you want to pay N × X for having no particular benefit?

The second manipulation scenario, instead, takes into account the NFT providers sending one or more accounts to borrow the boosts in order to raise the income provided by the fees.

In this scenario, it is not convenient to occupy borrowing slots and losing the rewards associated to people using them, when you can simply raise up the floor of the fee / percentage that you ask in return for your lending.

Actually, I’ve also had a better idea, and I will post it soon

[Lourde]

Cant wait to read it I had another Idea myself inspired by a DEX… I wanna make a pro type proposal but Im gonna Machine Gun it as a fantasy plan… Stand By… This requires Dictation…

[Selim]

Great ideas guys, the implementation of these ideas and the adaptation to Cardano smart contract and Cardano transaction could be challenging.
If you create a pool or rely on the DEX to extract the daily fees and to take custody of the NFT, you need to create a smart contract or adapt the current smart contract to support NFT borrowing, reward distribution, and to have a sort of collateral in case the farming rewards don’t cover the borrowing daily payment. I think this is quite complex knowing how much time and money creating and auditing a smart contract would cost.
However, a very classic borrowing smart contract involving collateral and the transfer of the NFT to the borrower is very easy to implement, which means that you can borrow an NFT, but you need to put its value as collateral. The lender gets daily payment for lending the NFT, and after the expiration of the lending contract, the lender could get back the NFT + rent, or if the NFT is not returned, the lender gets the collateral (as if the NFT was sold and not lent) the lender can decide to put the NFT in a perpetual contract with fixed daily fees or auctioned daily fees or can decide to have a time limitation (5 days, 30 days … etc.)
to summarize, I think a classic NFT borrowing smart contract with collateral is very easy to implement and have probably already been created by the team based on their MuesliLending tweet, but I won’t speak for them. I’ll let the team comment on the feasibility of the proposed ideas.

[Lourde]

Now for those NFT holders that do not wish to separate from the cows permanently may not agree with the collateral and use of lending the actual NFT. I made a 2nd follow up proposal titled hungry cows second utilities 2nd utility. I for one want to keep whales from being able to use say a 90% NFT then walking away with it for a small loss… but I saw the smart contact as a needed part of the plan… you are expanding on that and I like where your going… What else do you see as a new direction for application or execution… Some ppl may just want to flip NFTs can this be a store front option … etc.

[Plan_A]

Thank you for your appeciation, Selim!

I am aware of the fact that the boosting pools idea is the most challenging one, which is why I offered the simpler solutions. Of course, it’s not something for tomorrow, but on a long-term perspective, it would be a very convenient one, I think

[Lourde]

MELD just had an AMA that mentioned pooled lending … They are testing… not per to peer supplying… You just supply directly to MELD and you gain yeild the protocol lends from the pool… And an NFT similar to an LP NFT records your share of the pool and redirects the yeild… of I understand it correctly… This is intriguing… Can we expand that for muesli?

[Plan_A]

Woah! Definitely something to think about

Meanwhile, I will simply drop this here…