This seems like a very good next step for expanding both Interlay Network and HydraDX’s omnipool. I would vote aye on this proposal 

As an avid swimmer in the Omnipool, it would be great to have INTR tradeable there. Makes absolute sense with the ability to have INTR single-sided LP and automagically paired against all other assets in the Omnipool

Nay, we should start with INTR/DOT pool on Interlay DEX. Ofc i understand that more rewards is smth that always make sense for current Omnipool users, heh.

But is there any single reason why we really need INTR in Omnipool, especially earliar then having INTR/DOT on our own DEX? And would that bring at least one new iBTC user to Interlay? The fact that HydraDX community already have 10 iBTC without any rewards means that they can get 20 or 200 iBTC lately also without rewards. Just because iBTC is so strong asset.

However i have nothing against incentivizing Hydra community for putting more iBTC into the omnipool. More iBTC into pool - more INTR rewards. Some steps may be. 20, 50, 100 iBTC seems to be reasonable. If some reasonable mechanics like this would be proposed, i'll support for sure.

[@wd9Q...41Ms](wd9QGFDPLPhYUnu4wQN7zRG1HRz1t4rMKeMAYUL7QtqyE41Ms-interlay) 

Hey sir thanks for give you feedback

by introducing INTR to the Omnipool, it is as if you were providing liquidity individually to each asset in the Omnipool and without the need to have the other token in possession

for example if the Omnipool has: dot, usdt, eth, ztg and you provide INTR

it's like you have INTR/DOT
INTR/USDT
INTR/ETH
Etc

all with the same capital, no need to search for the other token, and no need to deploy INTR for each separate pool, since the Omnipool already holds a lot of other assets, it would create an easily accessible liquidity center for INTR

And regarding the 10 iBTC, I think it was misunderstood, the HydraDX community through its POL ( protocol own liquidity), acquired 10 iBTC and provided it as liquidity, this produced new users who minted iBTC to the ecosystem, since it was paid at a premium rate of WBTC  via otc in the same HydraDX protocol:
https://twitter.com/cl0w5/status/1644326195020873729?t=8ZFGm8XxRhwUaoAhqJT2Ww&s=19

So i think already bring new users and fresh capital to Interlay and iBTC 

I think that Alexey is quite aware of what Hydra and Omnipool are. It would be illogical from the point of view of benefits for Interlay to refuse to add a INTR to Omnipool without providing a second pair to DOT or USDT. You don't just lose nothing, you also earn on commissions. Imba.
This is not a competition with its own INTR/DOT pair, INTR should be as liquid as possible
Be sure to place an INTER in Omnipool. I'll be waiting

[@wdAJ...jhCy](wdAJa9EzST7ihtAott5qghUVEkSzasE2UBYsFmFSPcxMrjhCy-interlay)

Would be happy if Alexey give his position. I don't see any value and benefits in rewarding INTR for Omnipool for at least at this time tbh.

All said about "lose nothing" etc is only related to Omnipool users, who clearly simply want to get more rewards. I have nothing against adding INTR in Omnipool, you can add any token i suppose. I am against waste money for rewarding it.

[@wd9Q...41Ms](wd9QGFDPLPhYUnu4wQN7zRG1HRz1t4rMKeMAYUL7QtqyE41Ms-interlay) 

Interlay doesn't spend anything. Moreover, Interlay will earn on commission fees. He will still own the INTR provided to Omnipool

[@wdAJ...jhCy](wdAJa9EzST7ihtAott5qghUVEkSzasE2UBYsFmFSPcxMrjhCy-interlay) gotcha, missread, sorry)

It should also be taken into account that if Omnipool Users acquire iBTC and wish to use it in the Interlay Chain with its different features or withdraw them to BTC, they need INTR as gas, and being able to obtain these in the Omnipool greatly reduces that friction for the news users.

[@wdCt...vGj8](wdCth6mYwN2JqwdNSF1Kci368PLjvC8ZRpTgiNRPZrT3cvGj8-interlay) sure, thats why we going to bring INTR/DOT and iBTC/DOT pairs nearest future.

[@wdCt...vGj8](wdCth6mYwN2JqwdNSF1Kci368PLjvC8ZRpTgiNRPZrT3cvGj8-interlay) Good point!


Seems like guys from Hydra coordinated to came to us and get some free money. Finally have nothing against in case some more targets for iBTC would be reached. Like, each 10 iBTC - some portion of INTR from us to support Omnipool. And no rewards for adding INTR token. Right now its not true time for INTR token marketing i suppose, at least until Interlay DEX wouldn't be launched.

[@wd9Q...41Ms](wd9QGFDPLPhYUnu4wQN7zRG1HRz1t4rMKeMAYUL7QtqyE41Ms-interlay) 

Mm I think you focus more on the point of INTR as an incentive? which is not really the starting point of this discussion, you can even remove it if you want, the main point of this proposal is **Add INTR like Liquidity**

simply adding INTR to the Omnipool makes it already available to a wide variety of assets, without having to search lps for INTR/DOT or INTR/USDT, etc individually

don't need to incentivize it, don't need to look for DOT to do 50/50 LP and  control everything directly from governance, without having to send the tokens to third-party teams, as well as the fees generated.

what is the free money? everything is owned by Interlay Comunnity, and I believe that keeping the discussion respectful is crucial for good communication. 🙌

[@wd9Q...41Ms](wd9QGFDPLPhYUnu4wQN7zRG1HRz1t4rMKeMAYUL7QtqyE41Ms-interlay) We should try to understand Hydra before making these comments. I hold INTR before HDX and know Hydra since launch. It is like they said. If interlay put a portion of their INTR into the Hydra omnipool providing liquidity they are only helping to make their own token INTR more liquidity and will get some rewards for adding liquidity. They don't have to give one single INTR to Hydra. Hydra is great, because it allows you to buy and sell your tokens with great liquidity. It is annoying to see the low liquidity and volume on the CEX because people don't have realistic sell-and-buy orders.

I fully support both parachains, and I'm excited about the potential integrations. As an INTR holder, I will vote in favor of this proposal as it will increase liquidity for INTR and provide more use cases for both networks.

After reviewing the discussion, I am confused about the concept of "free money" for HDX holders. Please review the proposal description again and let's maintain a respectful discussion.

To clarify, the proposal does not provide INTR tokens for LP incentives as liquidity mining is not available on HydraDX atm. Rather, it aims to provide liquidity and earn rewards from generated fees. This will properly utilize INTR funds and generate yield at no cost.

[@wd7c...8J1v](wd7c5x8mRhEXCKxfeUmF3eNkbcsJwSuk69dMKmG9eVDem8J1v-interlay) yeah, seems i missread the entire idea, sorry. I appreciate any intergrations with other parachains really much!

Let me also add that i strongly consider any new use cases increasing iBTC liquidity by parachains can pretend for INTR rewards. This is a bit different topic, but let our dear Hydranians knowing it anyway!)

[@wd7c...8J1v](wd7c5x8mRhEXCKxfeUmF3eNkbcsJwSuk69dMKmG9eVDem8J1v-interlay) 

I think this is it. Most (if not all) people who are against it don't fully grasp the idea of the omnipool. 

Interlay is losing no tokens, but merely storing them in another place while earning fees from trading on it. The tokens are always available to the interlay protocol and "omnipool users" dont benefit from them besides from an added  token to trade, which is directly benefitting the interlay protocol as well as their token is made more available. Especially considering that no extra liquidity pair needs to be sourced, bought and paired. 

Solely INTR from the treasury needs to be deployed and that's it. 

I will vote in favor of adding INTR liquidity to the Hydra Omnipool. Hydra is great, because it allows you to buy and sell your tokens with great liquidity. 


One more point is adding liquidity from treasury means taking some risks for sure.

Would you guys probably cover all possible risks. Including:

1. What would happen with our treasury tokens if MultiChain would be drained or USDT blacklist some of your USDT tokens in Omnipool?

2. What would happen if some low-liquidity token in omnipool got manipulated:

- smb bring 1M USDT into Omnipool and swap to HDX tokens.
- swap expensive HDX tokens INTR and withdraw
- swap rest of HDX back to USDT
- withdraw USDT

Do you have a clear simulation of this kind of behaviour?

****

Generally saying, we can look for your offer as investment idea for Interlay holders. However it still totally unclear if investing INTR from treasury make sense from strategic standpoint. We are not investment DAO i suppose, we are buliding iBTC, thats our purpose.

[@wd9Q...41Ms](wd9QGFDPLPhYUnu4wQN7zRG1HRz1t4rMKeMAYUL7QtqyE41Ms-interlay) Hey sir: 

We arent using multichain tokens, but Wormhole. All bridges add risk, of course. As does every pallet and every smart contract. Every HRMP channel you're adding risk regarding the competency of the other parachain developers.  Re: wormhole Bridge specifically - they were hit with one of the largest hacks the space has seen, but they plugged that gap and made users hole. They have the biggest bug bounty in the entire space as well as making numerous security improvements since the exploit. They also have super cool stuff on their roadmap to bring it closer to a trustless model (not like snowbridge but is the most competent so far) 
 
If there was a exploit on any token in the omnnipool or so, the Omnnipol has different security mechanisms that will limit the damage and prevent a single toxic asset from draining all the liquidity:  **including weight caps**. that each asset has from the Omnipool tvl, this to avoid great damages in case an asset becomes toxic, where the largest established assets such as DOT and DAI, obtain a much higher weight cap

Another defensive mechanism is the targeted pausing function which enables the **HydraDX Technical Committee** to temporarily pause transactions calling specific functions of our pallets.

**oracles & dynamic fees oracles pallet** will provide volume and price data which will be used to adjust LP & Protocol fees during times of greater volatility. This helps to protect LPs from IL during major crypto moves by moving some of the cost to traders.

 **circuit breakers**- which stop some functions (example: adding or withdrawing Liquidity from a specific asset, if it is outside the normal parameters)

**XCM monitoring and triggers** - TLDR: limiting flow of assets through XCM that are suspicious/ irregular to prevent them flowing onto HydraDX chain or stop them from leaving (WIP)

Also **our POL** - Omnipool provides a large amount of liquidity to the Omnipool and won’t be participating in any bank run situation. Think of the protocol as LP of last resort - it won’t race you to the bottom, it’ll go down with the ship

So we have asset weight caps, liquidity add/ remove limiters, in-block trade limits and soonTM XCM rate limiters - all of which would reduce the impact. We modelled before the recent security improvements, if an asset has 10% weight cap and suffers -95% price movement, it'll impact LRNA by e.g. 10-15%

[@wd9Q...41Ms](wd9QGFDPLPhYUnu4wQN7zRG1HRz1t4rMKeMAYUL7QtqyE41Ms-interlay) Having a liquid market for INTR token on a Dex is also a must, if you want to avoid CEXs

so instead of spending INTR from the treasury, in incentives that do not even serve to attract liquidity, can use those same tokens as  own liquidity and access an extensive market of tokens, without the need to search for a 2nd token for seed the pool, and pay for services of  Market Maker

also now we are the best route respect slippage and liquidity for obtain iBTC in the ecosystem, and soon wit our POL, we will adquire more iBTC during q2 and will be added like liquidity 

I'm generally very supportive of this idea since it makes sense to create POL in INTR instead of paying incentives for INTR pools, while simultaneously diversifying the treasury.

I just don't think that right now is a good time to do so. The community has to be aware that the execution of such a proposal would sell INTR tokens from the treasury in exchange for LRNA. It is just my personal view, but I do think that the INTR token is very undervalued compared to other projects on Polkadot and I would not want to sell a large chunk of the treasury holdings at such depressed prices.

[@wdB3...ay33](wdB34NMMEU8je5TtMownSZ9LMHWY5oWYfyGqvw9UfRsR6ay33-interlay) Hi, there is no "selling INTR tokens from the treasury in exchange for LRNA". The INTR treasury just provides INTR as an LP position into the Omnipool via XCM. Trustlessly and without losing control of the funds. The INTR position can be withdrawn at any time via INTR governance and INTR sent back to its treasury. The only risk here as with any LP is the impermanent loss, which is partially compensated in LRNA. On the other hand there can be a surplus of INTR for the position generated from trading fees. More info: https://docs.hydradx.io/omnipool_treasuries

Ever since OHM and ROME I've realized that Protocol Owned Liquidity is an awesome concept because the treasury receives rewards from swaps of their tokens instead of constantly paying out LM rewards and depleting the treasury. Then I learned about the HydraDX Omnipool design and was impressed with all of the security features to reduce IL like capping the amount of a token in the pool, having circuit breakers to stop trading in an asset if its volatility increases too much (I think circuit breakers activate within one block). Plus single-sided liquidity provision simplifies implementation for the Interlay team and provides more concentrated exposure to all of the other assets in the Omnipool instead of choosing which individual pairs are incentivized.

I've been a long-term Kintsugi/Interlay vault operator and understand why the Interlay team has felt a need to build their own DEX so that they can create loan products based on iBTC to grow the iBTC economy. However, I now feel that the Omnipool design is superior to all other xyk DEXs and superior to Uniswap v3 "concentrated liquidity". Therefore it seems the most efficient place to establish deep INTR trading liquidity. Therefore the combination of Omnipool and POL (or Treasury Owned Liquidity TOL as I like to call it) seems like a no-brainer and the question is only "wen?".

Regardless of the timing of the rollout of Interlay's own DEX, I whole-heartedly endorse depositing some amount of INTR into the Omnipool. Stellaswap is the deepest INTR liquidity pool currently and I notice that Stellaswap currently has $100k TVL in INTR-GLMR v2 pool as a comparative datapoint.

Therefore I propose two different possible amounts of INTR that could be deposited into the Omnipool:
1) Deposit the same amount of INTR into the Omnipool for each LM incentive program paid out by the treasury. That's currently $8500 or 362k INTR in today's Stellaswap 2-month funding proposal. That amount of INTR would be a "small step" into the Omnipool and with each LM incentive paid out we'll incrementally deposit more INTR into the Omnipool.
2) Go all the way right now and deposit $100k of INTR (3.4M INTR) to match the current INTR-GLMR v2 Stellaswap pool depth. I don't know the current size of Interlay treasury so this may not be feasible or palatable, but it would reduce team workload in that you'd need to transfer INTR only once.

note: I propose not providing ANY INTR as liquidity mining incentives to the Omnipool right now. ONLY deposit tokens that the Interlay treasury retains ownership of.

-- spazcoin

[@wdCm...tn4a](wdCmDzK89DAvpda8cgBMif6Hx5aZph2s2Y1r4HcLyGTt1tn4a-interlay)  I would support this. Wen can we move to vote?

[@wdCm...tn4a](wdCmDzK89DAvpda8cgBMif6Hx5aZph2s2Y1r4HcLyGTt1tn4a-interlay) 

Those are reasonable proposals, I would prefer the 2nd option to at least have 100k or more as liquidity based on the amount that is available in the treasury, it is a low percentage, it will allow reasonable trades and take advantage of the extension of Omnipool assets

I agree with point "Protocol Owned Liquidity is an awesome concept", we can at least try to start test it on some reasonable numbers and see whats going on. Thank you.

However, what about the design of the whole process? The Interlay treasury would get rewards more or less automatically, or? Who will contorl INTR tokens? Who'll write the code? Etc. Sorry if i am little bit naive, unfortunately i am totally not tech guy. Just want to know what can be our next steps to make all happen.

[@wd9Q...41Ms](wd9QGFDPLPhYUnu4wQN7zRG1HRz1t4rMKeMAYUL7QtqyE41Ms-interlay) 
they are good questions

a) How will interlay get the fees?
A: These for now are added to the same LP position, but later will be possible claim the fees separately without removing the LP position

b) who controls the tokens?
A: The sovereign Interlay account, so any changes must be done through governance

c) who writes the code?
A: no need to write code, it will be done through the extrinsic, although this is still a bit tricky, someone from the Interlay team can take care of that and make the corresponding calls

so for me the next steps would be to define the terms of the proposal, that is, how many tokens or value in $$, we are willing to place as liquidity in the Omnipool

and after that, the formal proposal is made

[@wdCm...tn4a](wdCmDzK89DAvpda8cgBMif6Hx5aZph2s2Y1r4HcLyGTt1tn4a-interlay) 

I just wanna add that the Zeitgeist Team added $200k worth or 2.1% of all tokens. Just to showcase a smaller other project who didn't shy away from providing solid liquidity. 

[@wd9v...HH4q](wd9v4W4YYojKZmiLtVYGCmSPmCGkjtrYUkcas2EoKC8fHHH4q-interlay) 
Yes I heard the Zeitgeist team put in $200k of tokens which is 2.1% of all tokens. Definitely sizable.
INTR is currently $1.7M market cap but 21.7M FDV, so putting $100k or 3.4M INTR into Omnipool would be 5.8% of market cap and only 0.4% of total tokens.  0.4% < 2.1% so yes we could put in more.

I also learned from jrafaelangrita after this post that the Interlay treasury holds 248M INTR right now, so 3.4M INTR would just be 1.4% of the treasury so not too much at all.

I would totally vote AYE on putting in similar 2.1% of tokens like ZTG which would be like 17.8M INTR or 7.1% of the treasury. But if I ended up proposing it first, I'll probably stick with $100k or $200k of INTR to not get too many people upset with using so many tokens for something they don't understand yet. (they'll become more comfortable with it after seeing it in action for a while)

[@wdCm...tn4a](wdCmDzK89DAvpda8cgBMif6Hx5aZph2s2Y1r4HcLyGTt1tn4a-interlay) 

Sorry but where is the point in depositing $100k of INTR to create about the same liquidity that we currently have on Stellaswap and possibly less than what we will have on Interlay DEX while risking high IL for the treasury if INTR price increases?

Stellaswap was asking for a meager $1,500 of INTR incentives to create a pool that would be similar to ~$500k TVL of a Uniswap v2 or ~$250k single sided liquidity into Omnipool in terms of depth. To me, the money the DAO risks by depositing into Omni pool is in no relation to the benefits given the other options we have.

I am all for making INTR more accessible.  The Interlay treasury would own the Liquidity & earn the fees.  This is really a no lose situation.  

Graphic representation of Hydrate your Treasury 👀
![](https://twitter.com/JindrichGreen/status/1656293932823658497?t=HjgU03ntSEPYxS7a_5i1Pw&s=19)
https://twitter.com/JindrichGreen/status/1656293932823658497?t=wW1_vhpJ1V58lCY6P6lzqw&s=19

Yes like [@wdCm...tn4a](wdCmDzK89DAvpda8cgBMif6Hx5aZph2s2Y1r4HcLyGTt1tn4a-interlay)  say in the last comment

I believe that we can add like liquidi an initial amount of 200k $, and later, after seeing how it has worked, decide if it is worth adding more or not.

200k $ is a enought amount for a reasonable slippage
For mlre context:


To put some perspective on this, on $1000 trade you currently get:
USDT/DOT ($465k liq): 0.26% slippage
USDT/iBTC ($298k liq): 0.38% slippage
USDT/ZTG ($172k liq): 0.62% slippage

As a contribution to the discussion around the protocol owned liquidity (POL) in the Omnipool, I prepared an analysis of the benefits and risks and tried to put it into perspective to the existing solutions. The questions I raised are not answered directly but are followed up with unbiased facts, so that the readers can draw their own conclusions. 

## Cost analysis

### Does this replace the need for incentives for INTR pools and how much does it save?

So far the DAO has spend ~700k INTR for liquidity mining for INTR across various chains and DEXs, while only one pool (INTR/GLMR on Stellaswap. Moonbeam) retained sufficient liquidity over time:

- Acala: 440,000 INTR
- Stellswap: 250,000 INTR
- Arthswap: 6,500 INTR
- Total: 690,650 INTR ~$15,700 (with INTR at $0.0227 as per 08/05/2023)

The recent proposal from Stellaswap asked for 64,000 INTR (=$1,500) for 8 weeks and assumed an APR for ~60% for the Pulsar pool (Uniswap V3 style). From the experience with the existing INTR pool on Stellaswap (Uniswap V2 style), it is known that Stellaswap has an interest to continue paying incentives for the INTR pool unilaterally at a lower APR, while the TVL stayed relatively constant.

Given that Pulsar pools allow for concetrated liquidity, it can be assumed that a pool on HydraDX would need around 10 times the TVL of a Pulsar pool to achieve the same liquidity. Assuming $100,000 TVL (about the historic average on Stellswap over the past months) on Pulsar, the DAO would need to deposit around $500,000 (10x the $50,000 INTR in the Stellswap pool) in INTR into HydraDX’s Omnipool, which would be around  20,000,000 INTR or 8% of the treasury.

### Does that replace the need for a market maker on a CEX?

The current market maker is not able to provide sufficient order book depth for users to execute larger trades without meaningful price impact. While a large liquidity pool would improve the tokens liquidity, I does not fully replace liquid listings on CEX’s because these are still the easiest way for new users to buy INTR token and join the network. However, on-boarding new users usually only requires a small amount of token so that there is no hard requirement for deep liquidity on CEXs. 

## What are the risks for the DAO?

### From price changes of the INTR token

Since HydraDX’s Omnipool is similar to a Uniswap V2, the IL behaves very similar. Assuming the DAO deposits 20mln INTR tokens in the pool at the current price of $0.0227, every 1% increase in the INTR price would result in an impermanent loss (IL) of around $5100.

Given the above cost analysis, a 3% increase in INTR price would already result in an IL that would have covered the cost for the all three previous incentive programs.

Should the price of the INTR token decrease, the DAO would not receive any LRNA token when redeeming the LP position and hence, would not diversify the treasury that way.

### Price/Bridging risk

Currently, the majority of the TVL on HydraDX are tokens that are bridged via Wormhole (wBTC, wETH and DAI). These three tokens make up for almost $6m or 63% of the protocols TVL. Since INTR would be implicitly paired against all other tokens in the pool, the DAO is at risk of incurring losses in the event of another Wormhole exploit. This could lead to a loss of around 2/3 of the DAOs initial/current contribution. 

## What are the benefits for the DAO?

### Trading fees

What the cost analysis left aside is that the DAO would generate a 0.3% trading fee from every trade that would be executed through the INTR pool (every buy or sell of INTR). The current daily volume of most tokens on HydraDX is between 1-10% of the TVL. Assuming similar values for INTR and the aformentioned $500,000 INTR deposit, this would generate around 1.1-11% APY for the DAOs LP position.

### From price changes of the INTR token

Should the price of the INTR token increase (relative to the other tokens in the pool) after the deposit of the token, then the DAO would receive, upon withdrawal on the LP position, some LRNA token. LRNA token can be traded for any other token in the pool and the DAO would therefore diversify the treasury.

### Price risk of other tokens

Because the LP position of the DAO is implicitly exposed to the price risk of other tokens in the Omnipool, a decrease in the other tokens prices relative to INTR would mean that the DAO would receive some LRNA tokens upon withdrawal, similar to the situation described above.

## Further considerations

- On the one hand, INTR price is currently close to this all-time low. With small tokens usually appreciating in price more than established tokens during a bull run, this could lead to considerable IL for the DAO
- On the other hand, the constant and high issuance of INTR tokens relative to its current supply keeps diluting existing holders and consequently puts pressure on the price.
- Setting up a large INTR position on Omnipool would directly compete with an INTR pool on Interlays on DeFi hub, which is supposed to launch soon.

[@wdB3...ay33](wdB34NMMEU8je5TtMownSZ9LMHWY5oWYfyGqvw9UfRsR6ay33-interlay) Thank you for the analysis, it is insightful and well put. There are some points raised that deserve additional perspective:

1) The concentrated liquidity argument loses its power when you realize you need to provide liquidity for every pair you are interested in - separately. In Omnipool, the token is paired with every other token. As there is currently 10 tokens, you would need liquidity * 10 to achieve the same trading result as on UniV3 if you want equally good tradability with all the other tokens. Many more are in the pipeline, so the effect will actually amplify in time and univ3 model will become less and less favourable. Inefficiency of trading outside of concentrated range is also well known.
2) It also comes down to how one values the state-of-the-art features that are provided on HDX platform. Swaps and LPing is where it starts. OTC, DCA, LM, security features like rate limiters, circuit breakers... 
3) All on polkadot native dex. INTR will be traded in it's native form and sent securely via XCM, rather than wrapped into ERC20.
4) It is fair to also assume the trading volume will grow significantly under better market conditions so the IL from possible price change might be better balanced out by accrued fees but these are just hardly predictable speculations.

Thank you very much for the analysis, however regarding the IL, the HydraDX team is working on some IL comparisons and calculators, which will help to have a better view on this point, since now is hard to do

As for the point of bridges assets, it is something that is inevitable to avoid, since more liquidity is outside the ecosystem, however this percentage will go down more and more, as the POL strategy is executed, where several will be added. Millions of $, in various native assets, like DOT and vDOT, as well as more ecosystem projects joining (ASTAR soon) and of course the same community adding liquidity and the security measures will help in any case to limit of a possible damage

-----
Personally, I see it as a good thing to add liquidity when the token price is low, since when it goes up, you end up with LRNA (which represents the liquidity of the Omnipool, so if liquidity goes up, the LRNA price too, which you can swap to other tokens through DCA and diversify the Treasury( POL) or do INTR buybacks) and in turn you end up with a higher TVL as liquidity available to the market, without making more effort and without deploying more capital, and thus the **Interlay community can enjoy a market more liquid** for INTR token, controlled by the same community through governance, not depending on market makers, not depending on CEXs, all trustless and through governance

and since you will not withdraw the liquidity, in a short term, it also gives you to accumulate fees,

Also if remain in the same range, still you end up with more fees - tokens

and with the addition of dynamic fees, the liquidity provided will become more profitable, obtaining more  tokens

Do you guys have same stuff on Kusama? Basilisk if i am not wrong? Why not to start with this on Kusama with KINT and see whats going on following our best traditions.

Have thousands vKINT to vote on it on Kusama.

[@wd9Q...41Ms](wd9QGFDPLPhYUnu4wQN7zRG1HRz1t4rMKeMAYUL7QtqyE41Ms-interlay) hey sir thanks for the suggestion

But nope, basilisk does not have Omnipool

basilisk is a permissionless DEX created for price discovery with LBP, most surely when there is a good bridge between ksm and Polkadot, surely all tokens that still do not have price discovery or are not sufficiently accepted, liquid, etc surely  will use basilisk until they are the matyre enought for be in the Omnipool 

IIRC the Omnipool is on HydraDX only. Basilisk does not have an Omnipool.

I'm supportive of making such a proposal.

Good proposal. INTR needs better liquidity. Pretty sure INTR in the omnipool and the DeFi hub can co-exist.

**INTR to Omnipool**


I have seen that recently various incentives have been made for iBTC pairs in different Dexs paid in INTR

So I would like to propose the following initiative:

**Provide INTR as liquidity in the Omnipool** (by design it allows LPing a single token) in order to access a large number of assets that will expand over time, which by providing liquidity, is as if we were opening a pair with each Omnipool asset, without the need to be incentivizing separate pools,

and in turn the Interlay community, will be able to **manage the fees generated** through governance, opening up different possibilities

It should also be noted that the HydraDX community owns and already provides **10 iBTC as liquidity**, which currently makes Omnipool the best option in terms of slippage, you can review it for yourselves

Also INTR could be used as an incentive in the Omnipool **(this can be separated in another discussion and is not the main point of the proposal)** once Liquidity Mining is active and create a broader liquidity base (with the difference that the LM of the Omnipool rewards long-term LPs, since the more last the position in the Omnipool, more rewards will be generated, these positions can also be transferred)

For now I would like to propose and discuss the above ideas, so as a community we can decide what the terms would be.