SUP Transferability: Planning Discussion

[pete]

@imran

Liquidity Provisioning & Market Setup

Token transferability without liquidity planning could create an unstable or misleading user experience. This is a valid concern, and I support the idea of the Foundation:

• Coordinating LP incentives or DEX/CEX onboarding strategies
• Ensuring there’s market depth and price discovery
• Communicating clearly what to expect post-transferability

That said, the DAO should not be locked from deciding transferability at a governance level while waiting for the Foundation to act. Instead, a yes vote gives the DAO authority to initiate and lets the implementation date remain flexible until liquidity setup is complete.

Regarding the SUP liquidity strategy, I would like to throw an idea into the mix: Yield Forwarding

If the DAO was open to pairing SUP with OETH on mainnet or (superOETHb on Base) instead or in addition to ETH, we could turn on Yield Forwarding for the pool (more info here and here). With Yield Forwarding we can take the underlying yield generated from the OETH (or superOETHb) in the pool and have it sent directly to a DEX’s gauge as a bribe on the pair - this basically creates a constant bribing system on the pair, funded by OETH (or superOETHb) itself rather than being paid by Superfluid.

Alternatively instead of going straight to bribes, the yield can be forwarded directly to the Superfluid DAO treasury - so the DAO would be earning the pool’s trading fees, plus the OETH (or superOETHb) yield on top. Here is a simple graphic of the two different applications:

Presumably the pool volume should be similar on a SUP/OETH (or superOETHb) pool as it would be on a SUP/ETH pool since OETH (and superOETHb) is 1:1 with ETH. Yield Forwarding is also possible with SUP/OUSD, Origin’s stablecoin. About 30 different projects have set up pools with Yield Forwarding enabled and have been enjoying the passive yields across Base, Sonic, and mainnet.