Building rChili Liquidity

Description: Both the Chili & rChili coin have been launched with a token cap, and not too much functionality has been developed around them. With the plan offering grants and token distribution still being pursued, a major issue relates to the liquidity of the coin. For rewards to be built around rChili, it needs to be easy to enter the pool. Currently the pool size is around $15k of MATIC & rChili and would run into supply issues if rChili functionality started to be rolled out.

Manifesto/Vision: Ideally rChili becomes the reward token received from the community based Chili token. Then rChili can be spent on prizes and such. It would be best to have a stable and incentivized liquidity of rChili to allow for new non Metacartelians to buy rChili prizes and enter the ecosystem.

Problem: rChili’s small liquidity makes it difficult to purchase rChili if demand rapidly rises.

Solution: The larger liquidity pool we have, the more resistant it is from price spikes. Additionally a proper and sustainable market for demand can not form if supply is irregular.

Product: Adding liquidity to rChili on sushi

Validation: I spoke with the DAO during the Town Hall and there seemed to be support

Progress: NA

Differentiation: We offer LP rewards

Team: MetaCartelians, Damaged Goods

Grant Request $: $10k + equal amount of rChili

Funds: 0

Help: Always looking for help with tokenomics

Additional Resources: If there are any members interested in building a more stable model we would love to hear additional ideas on how to build liquidity of rChili.

Details: NA

  • This seems like a good idea
  • NO rChili doesn’t need liquidity
  • rChili needs liquidity but this isn’t the right way.

0 voters

We should wait to add liquidity until we expect a need for it. For example, MC plans to sell an NFT token for rCHILI, starting on X date.

Also we are already providing LP farming rewards for Sushiswap, so I’d second @Dekan suggestions of going for Honeyswap instead.

We do have a need for it for MCon. MCON rChili Auction - #3 by DamagedGoods

So we should have 2 LP pools? That seems like it would cause A LOT of price volatility to have two small pools split up like that. I’m all for helping out the little guy but if we’ve already started on Sushi it seems like a heavier lift to go back and start splitting liquidity ( + LP Staking contracts).