Generally speaking, I don't think it is a good idea to subsidize fees for exchanges to pay for exchange listings, but like my stance on the proposal in question, I'm not really arguing that it is some form of moral imperative to avoid doing so.
In the case of exchanges, I just don't think it makes sense to pay for listings normally, because if the exchange doesn't profit from the market in the long run, it will just drop the listing anyways. So, in that case, paying for a listing mostly makes sense if your intent is to capitalize on the short term bump in price when the coin gets initially listed on a big exchange. And my perhaps cynical view is that is why some token projects buy their listings.
Now with all that said, I think there can be a legitimate case made for getting more exposure for a token by getting listed on exchanges. But so far, there hasn't been a case where it seemed to make sense for Hive to pay to get listed on an exchange.
Similarly here, I think if we're going to setup an AMM, I think it should be designed so that its economics make it self-sufficient.
AFAIK Hive-engine has set up some AMMs already but I haven't investigated them yet (I think they're called Diesel pools). And I suspect we'll see some operating on the SQL smart contract processing platform that we'll be developing next as well. And I don't think it would be that much trouble for someone to code one up on the 1st layer between Hive and HBD, if there seems to be sufficient interest in that.
AMMs are always self-sufficient. It only takes one person to contribute "some" liquidity and the pool will operate. But more liquidity makes it more useful and therefore likely to be used more, and more usage may attract more liquidity (i.e. virtuous circle), so I see a situation where what I am calling a marketing expense of bootstrapping it may make sense, similar to listing on exchanges.
As I noted elsewhere, I have no opinion on this particular AMM nor the platform on which it is operating.
I think an AMM in L1, probably integrated with the internal market, would be a nice feature, but not critical. I'd probably support paying to develop it but not necessarily prioritizing.
the problem now is, HBD is so illiquid, you can't go in with larger amounts and you can't go out.
If funds from BSC can easily enter Hive, I think that opens doors for more investments here.
Also vise versa. If I know I can go out, I trust HBD more and hold larger amounts of it.
My personal view is, I would NEVER hold larger amounts in HBD. Price is highly volatile + haircut rule + loq liquidity.
I know we have some huge fans of HBD here, but I see no proof it works or is useful.
For now, it works like a limited short contract on hive.
IMO trusting HBD is dead simple right now, since you can convert it to Hive in 3.5 days, then sell it off on any Hive market. I think I've held well over 1m HBD at times and never felt the slightest risk.
The only real risk IMO is the haircut risk and it is pretty easy to manage that risk when Hive starts to approach the haircut level (convert and sell). And after next HF, there will be even more headroom before the haircut gets hit.
Price has not been highly volatile since the new conversion was added: it has behaved extremely well, IMO.
Yes, I agree, but if I compare it to any other stablecoin, I can't trade it for anything on "medium" volume.
More pairs with HBD would be IMO a key feature for it. The 3,5 days are not bad, but also not good if you want to move the funds. I mean holding other stablecoins brings not have those problems with it.
Some low fee gateway between 2 stablecoins could be a good solution for a "real-world use case".
It's also not difficult to get large amounts (as mentioned in my sibling comment, I've obtained over a million at times just trading on exchanges).