Just some observations on ZRX tokeneconomics

Alright, I’ll leave another note here with feedback, but ultimately it is the community that has the answers and the core team should guide the community to find the answers. It boils down to truly leveraging reflexivity to unleash network effects (very few people actually understand reflexivity and fewer how it relates to networks and tokens) and understanding how you can engage and incentivize community in a smart and long-term sustainable way to create that flywheel.

I must state again that 0x is in an incredibly fortunate position, because it has done all the hard work, and created a tremendous infrastructure that caters to the long-term vision of where we are headed. I have seen many teams in this space, and I must say 0x team is quite incredible, in many ways, in terms of integrity, in terms of technical prowess, in terms of vision, in terms of people working together, in terms of making it happen. 0x could benefit a lot from a stronger more community where members actively engage and own the protocol, and gladly 0x has laid the foundation for that to happen. 0x essentially connects all the liquidity sources in DeFi and acts as a liquidity engine that will come to power all of DeFi in a way that Chainlink powers all of DeFi through decentralized oracles. But it is not inevitable, so it is important to acknowledge some of the blindspots so we can address where we have to pay attention, in order to ensure that the vision of 0x will be materialized. 0x was ahead of its time when it launched, and its time will come, if we figure out as a community to unlock the missing pieces, the catalyst if you will. Sometimes its just like a spark and all of a sudden perception changes and people see the true value that few people have seen because they were not paying attention. It is not a given that anyone wins however much of a lead they have so for. We must start to be hyper realistic where things are and what is missing.

First let me say this @_wwarren and @abandeali1 are unique as founders for this decentralized financial revolution. There are on the same level as the founders of those projects that everyone is so bullish about. In some way they have seen even further ahead, and thinking about this longer. I have met members of the technical team at Stanford Blockchain conference or throughout events in San Francisco, and these people have great talent, e.g. @Remco pioneering 0x Mesh. You have @brentoshiro who cares about the community and has been doing a fantastic job. @mintcloud crafting the product and talking to community, making proposals like starting this thread. Blake Henderson I have seen many times on Twitter with savvy takes about market making and behind the scenes I am sure doing a lot of great work. @0x_peter who have I talked to in person is a thoughtful economist and thinks about all the different details that are important to consider. Fulvia’s speech at 0xpo was amazing and its great to see female leaders also part of this project. The design of 0x is also outstanding and has been throughout and is only getting better thanks to Ben Burns and others. Zach Skelly has recruting many of these great people. You have Chris Kalani and John Johnson who have done a fantastic job with Matcha. Daniel Pyrathon, Steve Klebanoff I met at a hackathon in SF and these guys are awesome and we had fantastic conversations. Clay Robbins I had some conversations with as well and he is thinking quite deeply about this and having worked at Square previously also very pragmatically. Matcha is not that old and already so much growth and traction. And so many of 0x talent came from lucrative positions at very successful startups (Square, Dropbox, Fb, etc). Let me tell you it is not that easy to assemble a team like this. With a team like that you can almost solve any problem and stay nimble and agile. I cannot mention all and I have not made everyone but I am sure everyone else is also great. (I can only tag 10 people in this post unfortunately,

Then you have great community members like nikita who is doing this as if he is part of the 0x team. cryptohydrate I have met in person and he was so in awe of the project and to see that in another person who is not part of core team is great. And there are many others like SonofPegasus, mikkke who still believe in the project, provide feedback and hold a financial stake. You had Danial on Twitter mention too how underestimated the project is. There are staking pools like VolleyFire and many others who align themselves financially with the project. There are so many other wallets and liquidity sources integrating with 0x API. It is connected and linked already so deep few people actually see this.

In some ways this space is driven by these truly game-changing mathematical principles, and then you look at the market and it feels very odd because most market participants do not really behave rationally or have sophistcated views. It is just a market after all. They don’t really analyze tokens based on fundamentals. So much of what is driving this market and in some way punishing 0x is not 0x’s fault. In the long term it is better to be virtuous and have integrity, instead of trying to do something in order to get some short term gain. However, in this market like any other capital is looking for a return. There is cost of capital.

As a thought experiment then let us put ourselves in the shoes of someone who truly believes in this project and has been supporting it from the beginning. For most people of the community who cannot contribute with technical input or applying for a job at 0x, or creating a staking pool, or any other role, we have essentially the 0x hodlers, who despite other projects in the space returning vastly superior returns on capital, somehow still believe in the project, because of the principles of transparency and openness that are so important in order not to just re-create the same financial system on decentralized rails. And despite everyone inside the space making fun of them for holding something that others regard as worthless, they kept holding, similar to Bitcoin in its early days. In fact, most people we can assume have a position that they bought into post ICO, even if they got a small ICO stake, they probably bought in a range where essentially now they are break even or still under water, when other tokens like Chainlink, or Aave (formerly EthLend) have returned upwards of 100x. Again, I am just trying to communicate some of the voices that I have been hearing of people in the community, who still believe or who have already given up at a loss.

And we cannot say that these holders are short-term thinking or impatient. They have endured the bear market, they have watched Bitcoin go past ATH, they watched Ethereum go past its ATH, and meanwhile ZRX until a few days ago was down 80% from its ATH. Many people also bought way closer to ATH, so still some way for them to break even. I don’t like talking about price as much as 0x core team, but it is just what is on people’s mind and it is driving the market, so we have to at least acknowledge it. It is sad that now the speculators will come in and profit on the mispricing while all the long-term holders will break even or have given up at a loss. The speculators will not stay. The token is there to reward the core team pushing to make it happen and early stakeholders who supported the project with capital. Generally, by holding capital for long time you signal where innovation should happen. There is value in that and even more if that capital can be more active by staking or other means. It is normal and understandable in a market that is obsessed with price to look at and say the project is worthless it feels like that is what is conventional wisdom. To be contrarian, it must not stay that way for long. It is unhealthy to invite speculators to come in and profit from this mispricing or depressed asset prices while they will provide little value to the community. They will come and go. It is normal for anyone involved with the project outside the team to doubt themselves and wonder if they were wrong in their assessment of the project. It is painful and almost irrational to hold on so long.

Think about the army of Chainlink marines who now have ownership of the protocol it is like free marketing they are spreading the word and the message, creating memes which creates a community flywheel. Also node operators need to hold the token in order to perfom the core function of the network. Similar to Tesla which has not done any marketing to focus on product and shipping is good. That is what 0x has done, and I applaud them for not having engaged in behavior that many exhibit in order to push prices. At the end of the day, you need to have tangible results and something that has value in order for the token to have value. @_wwarren has said this many times and I agree with it.

I think at the core of this is understanding how reflexity drives markets and how tokens are vehicles for network effects and aligning incentives of all stakeholders. Do not forget one set of stakeholders. It is also important to be very realistic as to how things are, and not how we wish them to be, in order to effect change. The goal for any network is to become a decentralized network that is owned by everyone. Another core element is understanding how perception drives value and creates its own feedback loop and therefore reality.

0x is in a great position because it somehow is the Bitcoin of DeFi and just how early on in Bitcoin’s cycle people dismissed it, we have a situation here, where essentially the perception of 0x is that it is worthless. Note it is not to say that it is worthless, just that this is the perception of majority of market participants at the moment. This is also a great opportunity, because they might just all be wrong. 0x might be one of the most valuable networks after all. We essentially have a situation here where most people already in the space have written off the project, and they stopped paying attention. So much is happening and if the sentiment is elsewhere the opportunity cost is too high, so many people do not realize the growth of 0x that is about to happen or even has happened in last few months. It is so interesting to watch the different set of participants in the markets and how they view / perceive 0x and how that is going to change and how it will affect the token. How perception creates its own reality. Unless you are a part of 0x core team or 0x long-term hodler, it is very difficult to see this. If the perception of many market participants is that the project is worthless it is reflected in the price, and continues to negatively perpetuate this kind of reality. But if the fundamentals do not match that reality, then at some point it will reverse. Reflexivity goes both ways, and what we may be about to see is a sort of short squeeze of perceptions, where most market participants have written off the project or fail to truly understand its potential and how it is also manifesting into reality. Unfortunately, 0x has also not been able to take advantage of this reflexivity as much as for example Uniswap, Chainlink or Aave. Or think about how Synthetix invented liquidity mining and how they can print sUSD, etc. The point is that 0x community could come together and also figure out a way to create this kind of flywheel, especially now that it is based on the great foundation that was put in place by 0x team.

As a side note, I do not think renaming the token is a good idea. It would be against the principles that you have stewarded of transparency and honesty of just now changing the token name to drive some hype. While it is true that some of the older generation of tokens have lacked, it is also not true at the same time. Chainlink for example has outperformed almost any other token and it was released during the same time as 0x. 0x should stand for the values it has championed while acknowleding that the tokenomics have to change. If incentives change, capital will notice. Just changing the painting won’t do much. 0x team could support the community to figure out the tokenomics. The burden should not fall on a few individuals. How can you create network effects if you are missing the most powerful force via reflexivity by leveraging the token in such a way that it aligns the interest of all stakeholders and makes them feel they own a piece of something valuable that is growing and supports the values that they care about.

At the end of the day, it is about 0x team having actually delivered, which they have, the awareness of changing what needs to change, which is happening, signalling to the market that you are willing and open to change, which is also happening and focusing on those blindspots. The sentiment is slowly changing and could rapidly accelerate. Any project must understand that not having network effects comes with a price that cannot be calculated, and just focusing on the technology is not enough. You cannot win simply by having the best technology because the best technology is a product of having network effects of people adopting your product and it constantly being improved by all the stakeholders. The answer is unlikely to come from 0x team alone, or any other individual or set of stakeholders. This is the moment for the community to come together and figure this out together. The answer is in all our heads, and we must communicate together to figure this out.

5 Likes

I’m going to disagree that renaming / rebranding is dishonest. Our messaging is too complicated for the DeFi investor’s short attention span. Our mix of products is also too complicated. Unifying branding into one name and simplifying messaging is a way of addressing the top of the funnel problem that @SonofPegasus references.

There are numerous instances where we lose out because of brand and message confusion. For example, 1inch has an API much like 0x has an API. When volume moves through 1inch API many resources will group it with 1inch integrator volume, whereas these same resources will not group 0x API integrator volume with Matcha. So we look bad because the product portfolio naming is too complicated. We can play whack-a-mole to get this fixed, but it may ultimately be easier to recognize that this is on us… we have too much going on to expect external media to keep track of it all.

This may even be good for our integrators as well. Someone integrating the 0x API might want to communicate to their customers that they are getting the same prices as Matcha (assuming the integrator haven’t added any fee layer on top). Powered by Matcha would be a much more straightforward means of communicating then powered by 0x.

Rebranding / Renaming has worked for many projects. Synthetix used to be Haaven. Aave used to be lend. Obviously, we can never know whether these products would have enjoyed the same success under their original names. However, my impression is that it did help to revive interest (at least for Synthetix [I’m less familiar with Aave’s story here].

2 Likes

I do not understand. The contract was issued as 0x. You cannot rename the token. You have to create a new token. Also Matcha is spearheaded by 0xLabs, a private company. I thought we are funding a public network. Changing the token like this would potentially create a lot of legal issues. I also do not how changing something on the surface would solve a problem of substance, as in incentive mechanism. Open to hear your and other thoughts and comments.

4 Likes

I am also going to add that I did not mean this would be dishonest. Like you said Aave and Synthetix also did this successfully although much earlier in their history. It also felt with them it expanded the vision. Going from 0x to Matcha would feel not like it as much even though I think Matcha is a great product. I just think 0x already has a great brand abandoning that could create second order consequences you cannot predict, regardless of what the token is named. Still open to hear anybody’s thoughts about this.

4 Likes

I don’t think we see the problem in the same way. I would say that the #1 problem is one of marketing and messaging. This goes for incentives too.

Renaming may not be a good way to about improving marketing/messaging. I’m definitely not an expert in this area, so it could be a terrible idea.That said I do think we need to think outside the box in terms of how to improve brand recognition and reduce confusion about 0x, 0x API, Matcha, ZRX, etc.

I also think that our existing story is much too complex to grasp. We need some way of simplifying and refreshing our identity and simplifying and refreshing our messaging. I think that updated toukeneconomics can play a powerful role in that rebrand / refresh / simplify process.

I also see demands for greater fee income for ZRX holders. I believe that it’s possible to increase ZRX staking rewards to some extent without sacrificing substantial growth. However, we’re not going to be able to compete with the massive inflationary distributions performed by projects like Curve, Balancer, and Sushi. Propping up valuation using inflation like this is not sustainable and will inevitably result in a crash / exacerbated boom & bust cycles.

From that perspective, I see the primary benefit from updated tokeneconomics as aligning the community behind updated branding and messaging. For example, signaling that tokenholders’ interests are linked to growth in usage of the 0x API. This is not explicit under our existing tokeneconomics. We should make it explicit to improve and simplify our messaging.

4 Likes

Yes I agree with that, it is important to update the narrative essentially, not sure though that is the most important problem. I also agree when you say that the story needs to be simplified, and right now across different parts of 0x, it can be confusing to outsiders. Speaking about messaging however at a time of the beginning of the year of the Ox not sure best idea to abandon 0x name.

I think it is important to be realistic and pay attention to how the market develops and actually think about value accruing to any actor in the system that provides value to the network in a real way. Any economic theory cannot be confirmed in a nascent networked economy yet. Not a fan of inflationary mechanisms either and did not advocate for them, just think we have to be more creative and go outside any economic theory, and really put ourselves into shoes of different stakeholders and think about what we can actually do to provide value to them and not forget them. For example, it was smart to cater to MM for a long time as they are the ones that bootstrap liquidity. I would say it is about investing into the ecosystem, because without an ecosystem of people building on top of a network growth might not happen as much as it could. The market is always moving. I have also said multiple times propping up token artificially is a bad idea. While I think an updated narrative is important that is not enough to create a real incentive.

I am also wondering when we talk about growth, growth for whom? And also if we give back or create value for certain those who have been actively supporting the growth, are we actually sacrificing growth or are we investing? If the incentives of all stakeholders of a network are not aligned it just creates all kinds of problems down the road.

I don’t have the answers. I am just sharing my perspective and feedback. I have been working in the brain computer field, and you all have been thinking about this longer and if you work at 0x you are also more tapped into what is going on behind the scenes. At the end of the day we need to experiment to see what works best. I think already coming together in this thread and everyone sharing their views is a step in the right direction.

2 Likes

Some further thoughts on incentives by Charlie Munger:

First. Under recognition of the power of what psychologists call reinforcement and economists call incentives. Well you can say, “Everybody knows that.” Well I think I’ve been in the top 5% of my age cohort all my life in understanding the power of incentives, and all my life I’ve underestimated it. And never a year passes, but I get some surprise that pushes my limit a little farther.

One of my favorite cases about the power of incentives is the Federal Express case. The heart and soul of the integrity of the system is that all the packages have to be shifted rapidly in one central location each night. And the system has no integrity if the whole shift can’t be done fast. And Federal Express had one hell of a time getting the thing to work. And they tried moral suasion, they tried everything in the world, and finally somebody got the happy thought that they were paying the night shift by the hour, and that maybe if they paid them by the shift, the system would work better. And lo and behold, that solution worked.

1 Like

Theo summarized the main constraints on ZRX economics in the OP. We’ve been exploring various models for years and it is super challenging to find a one that satisfies all of these constraints. But one recent idea that I’m really excited about is adding fees to certain transformer (Transformers — 0x Protocol 4.0 documentation) contracts.

Plain old vanilla ERC20 to ERC20 swaps (e.g. WETH => DAI) are quickly becoming commoditized and it is likely that fee margins will end up squeezed down close to zero, so adding any sort of protocol fee to these vanilla swaps will just make 0x Protocol less price competitive and less gas efficient.

On the other hand, in a situation where a Compound user has cETH and they want to swap it for USDC, the cETH/USDC trading pair has very little liquidity and they will end up getting a bad price if they attempt to do that trade. So instead they must (1) withdraw their ETH from Compound and (2) swap their ETH for USDC. These two transactions cost gas and it is time consuming to wait for transactions to be mined, switch websites, etc.

Transformer contracts allow 0x v4 to execute ERC20 transformations, such as depositing/withdrawing ETH from Compound. Multiple transformations can be strung together in a single transaction. This is extremely powerful for users because it allows them to complete complex DeFi actions like the example provided above in a single atomic transaction. From the perspective of the end user using 0x v4, if they look at the cETH/USDC trading pair it will appear just as liquid as ETH/USDC because that is where liquidity is being pulled from behind the scenes. If the user checks the price for cETH/USDC on another DEX, they will see that the price on 0x v4 is MUCH better, even if a fee is taken by the Transformer contract that withdraws their ETH from Compound.

There are many use cases where a Transformer could save users time or simplify the process of interacting with DeFi primitives. For example, a Transformer that makes it easier to deposit tokens into an AMM pool. So the user wouldn’t have to own $50 of ETH and $50 of DAI to deposit $100 into Uniswap’s ETH-DAI pool. Instead they could just use $100 of USDC (or any ERC20 token) that is sitting in their wallet and the two swaps (USDC => ETH & USDC => DAI) and deposit to Uniswap would automatically happen behind the scenes.

7 Likes

Love this idea Will. I see these types of transformers gaining a ton of traction over the next few months. I also agree that we should only consider a fee in places where the 0x proprietary product has a long-term differentiated advantage

4 Likes

Hi to all,
I am just a simple investor of ZRX since it’s ICO, and holding the entire amount since then because 0x has very strong bases with a great team and an amazing project.

But nowadays, even if you are the best of all in planet earth, a king of your specialty, some things are mandatory in order to proceed…
Without promotion, marketing and brand awareness you are not going anywhere else dear 0x.

Due to the fact that I belong in the lower to middle class in my country Greece I chase bounties in the crypto market for gaining some profits.
The result is that I have gained experience since '17 therefore I can say that I have a whole view of the cryptocurrency world.

To make a long story short, 0x and matcha have to run some marketing campaigns to the wider public for gaining more attention, followers and of course supporters and investors.
We have seen multiple examples on how this can be done.

I am presenting some:

  • Airdrops-rewards based on simple social media tasks
  • Airdrops to present holders
  • Presenting a new token, (tokenize Matcha) and airdrop it to ZRX holders or/and Matcha users.
  • Influencers (check Mia Kalifa’s Twitter account…)

The idea is to give some value and as return more % of value will come.

We can look at some successful projects which did all of the above, 1inch, suchi, and many more that increase their value to +1000% in one month time…!
1inch didn’t give 5 inch tokens but 400…

If I had sell my ZRXs in October 2020 and instead I had Polkastarter, polkadot, xxxx (something) protocol… Now I would be having my first million

Hope that was helpful!
And always available to help more!

4 Likes

I don’t think airdrops are a good idea. although there will be short-term growth, it will not be effective in the long-term. and go against the belief of the team, do right thing.
about zrx-tokeneconomics, I believe the team will have a better way to do it, and growth is the most important thing.

2 Likes

Agree. No airdrops. No need for them, and it’ll dilute the value of $ZRX. This was never on the table anyway.

If volume continues to rise, ZRX token value will continue to rise OR APYs will end up being astronomical. I like Will’s idea of charging a fee when the protocol has a clear, differentiated advantage, but right now it’s all about volume, attracting more and more market makers, helping raise awareness across the broader ethereum ecosystem, and keeping the flywheel going

5 Likes

I also agree with the majority of the comments above:

  • unless you want to create an ‘elite’ product, then simplifying communication, update messaging is necessary. At the moment is pretty difficult to understand, even for tech savy people the various components 0x API, matcha, mesh network, 0x token, etc.
  • improve tokenomics and incentives for 0x holders (right now it seems only market makers, i.e. a very restrict group of people) can benefit.
  • stakeholders should feel they own a piece of something valuable that is growing and supports the values that they care about.
  • again, reduce complexity in our story, value proposition, comms.

Hope this helps.

8 Likes

So… what happened to this?

Rewards have been paused for almost a year now to rework the tokenomics and incentive structure, but there have been no updates really like it’s been abandoned completely

1 Like

I agree, where is the transparency? How many topics are just gone with the wind in for this project.

1 Like

Building a network ecosystem
Some more brainstorming and ideas to chew on….

Levers

Levers are potentially fee based functions that allow a user to execute network functions that promote a convenience edge. The convenience edge enhances the user’s experience and the function benefit outweighs the functions execution cost while not negatively affecting the price competitiveness of the overall network.

Types of Levers
-Transformers: allow users to complete complex DeFi actions which normally take multiple time burdening and gas exhausting steps within a single atomic transaction. See Will Warren’s explanation above.
-Order Flagging: Allows a user to temporarily highlight their order within the order book to bring extra attention to the order from the MM pool. The MM that fills the flagged order while the order is flagged receives a fraction of the fee and the remainder is captured by the network. Flagging is a temporary attention grabbing state that expires after a certain determined duration of time. A user can flag their order as many times as the user wishes while the order is active.
-MM Tipping: Allows a user to tip a MM and track interactivity through a MM relationship builder tracker.
-MM Routing: Allows a user to route their orders to “Relationship MM’s”, MM’s that users have built a strong trading relationship with and track through their MM relationship builder tracker. MM routed orders only appear on the MM’s Relationship Order Book and are not visible to the global order book.
-Prophet Mirror: Allows a user to match their trade with a trade prophet and mirror their trade execution with their selected trade prophet.
-Trade Insurance: Sounds nice, is there a potential for trade insurance? How would it work?
-What other potential levers are there?

Network Positions

As network density matures it can be foreseen that the network ecosystem can help support a variety of jobs that help the network grow in appeal and function. Jobs are positions that require the staking of ZRX on the network to secure a specific job position. Certain jobs may require application / vetting processing fees in addition to their ZRX staking requirements. Staking ZRX among network jobs helps “voting power to be distributed towards actors that care about having a protocol that works well” as Mintcloud pointed out.

Types of Network Positions
-Trade Prophet: Professional traders that earn ZRX by allowing users to mirror their trades. The Trade Prophet indexor advertises prophet ranking and displays a prophets mirroring fee. The more successful a prophet the greater they can potentially charge over other prophets for their mirroring services.
-Market Maker: Currently MM’s are not required to stake any ZRX to operate as a MM on the network. I think that exploring a future where MM’s and or their trading desk are required to stake ZRX in order to be an active desk/MM on the network is interesting. As the network user density grows it will only be more advantageous for a MM to operate on the network and therefore the MM position will grow in value and in turn will grow to be more desirable.
-Network Position Validator: A Network Position Validator is a job position that assists in the validation of network positions that require validation. Validators earn through application/vetting processing fees. Validators earn a passive income from the network position pool that the validator has validated. A small % rake flows from the earnings of job positions that the validator has helped to validate back to the validator for a certain duration of time. A validator will lose their validation position if the validator validates too many problematic network positions.
-Network Debugger: Users that hunt for identifying network bugs and potential system problems. Debugger’s receive rewards from the Bug Hunting Bounty Fund by identifying critical potential issues. The greater the find the greater the reward. How would this fund be funded and or replenished? Do fractions of network captured value from levers flow into this fund?
-What other potential network positions could there be?

Relationship Observations

It appears that levers can help support the sustainment of network positions and future probable network positions can help assist in the formation of new potential levers.

Lever features can be potentially a strong way to grow network appeal without hurting overall price competitiveness.

1 Like

Any new update on tokenomics any new timeline or plan atleast? Building the tech is good but the community is also important. Just throwing some ideas and letting it cool off is not good for the project. Hope the team works on the tokenomics…