Paras and Ref Finance have been collaborating very closely since inception, from project development to ecosystem growth and user adoption.
Now that both projects are maturing (TVL, Volume and Transactions all consolidating), it creates a great opportunity to strengthen the link between Ref and Paras, between DeFi and NFT on NEAR Protocol, and create a value proposition at the intersection of both communities.
In this context, I believe it’s the right moment for Ref Finance to support the new NFT Staking Feature on Paras (https://stake.paras.id/, based on the Ref Farming contract), by supporting NEARNauts and Antisocial Ape Club, the top two NFT projects on NEAR. Both collections have already accumulating almost $3M in trading volume, have more than 3K unique holders collecting 10K+ unique artworks!
Objectives
NEARNauts Pool (upcoming)
Start Date: March 21
End Date: April 21
$REF Rewards per week: 1,150
$PARAS Rewards per week: (In Discussion)
ASAC Pool (existing and running)
Start Date: March 28
End Date: April 21
$REF Rewards per week: 1,350
$PARAS Rewards per week: 28,677
Next Steps
⁃ From Date of post to March 16: Community talks
⁃ March 16: create DAO proposal
A reminder that this proposal is up for discussion. Assuming the case you are making is correct, and your sentiment captures the rest of your community. I would then vote against providing any REF tokens at all.
Every initiative needs to be assessed from a growth mindset. How can the collaboration add value to the entire ecosystem? Of course this ought to be a capital efficient marketing campaign for REF, that is in fact the only reason why we would disburse money we are tasked to manage on behalf of our community. We do not have any obligations to fill the pockets of NFT holders - very frustrating to get attacked for having a sensible plan and not making passive rent seekers enough money.
First of all you can vote against I wouldn’t mind it either since its gonna be like a dollar for month so no worries. I’m not begging to fill my pockets with your REF tokens either. Capital efficient marketing is important but if you were to choose this road to market it you need to load up a little so everybody in the ecosystem will heard about you guys. You will only build bad reputation with this in the NFT ecosystem.
The Nearnauts and Ref cut a deal announcing exclusive staking via their system. Nearnauts team is informed it will be couple of months but they gave up on that promise and gave only 1 week exclusivity to Nearnauts.
An exclusivity was announced but not the length of that exclusivity (cf where did you get the couple of months information from?)
They supposed to build a staking platform too but they were lazy and went with Paras’s staking system. I mean why even bother when you have something ready, eh?
Ref’s dev team had two internal workshops on the topic and has assessed it was better to leverage the existing staking feature on Paras, for three obvious reasons:
Quicker go-to-market
Ref and Paras have strong ties / It would have been awkward for Ref to cannibalise the NFT staking space on something that is not its initial purpose
Very tight Q1 planning (cf point 1)
Today we got informed that rewards per week will be 1150 REF between all 7777 Nearnauts. Thats like 0.17 USD per naut per week.
Yes, if ALL Nearnauts are staked. The above proposal has been written to be discussed and I believe the rewards could be adjusted depending on both: the Ref and Naut communities
ASAC as the second collection launching gets more APY than us. Congratz to the Ref team tho. They made the perfect marketing with minimum capital spent.
How can you prove that the initial marketing benefited Ref?
Since the announcement, the potential benefit goes towards the Nearnauts’ community; staking intrinsically increases the value of the Naut
The above partnership led to a potential staking pool on Paras, which was not the case before
I think the issue is primarily that ref approved announcement offering exclusive staking. Retracted it and now offering less rewards than they are giving other projects. Although ref intended to offer first NFT staking partnership to nauts. Seems disingenuous to early NEAR NFT COMMUNITY AND IN BAD FAITH. We support you ref and pay your rent , not the other way around . Remember that
Nearnauts team. Before you guys made a deal with ASAC too and ASAC basically wanted early access as possible.
I dont care about your Q1 planning you announced something you were expected to do that specific thing and also don’t care about the Paras/Ref ties. We are not trying to centralize everything on paras we are trying to decentralize everything in the ecosystem.
Yeah we are trying to change that or dont do it at all. But the $REF rewards you proposed are such a joke. Even Paras offering more with their staking system.
Because it is supposed to be benefitial for $ref too. At the end both sides needs to get something. You are not doing this for charity.
Staking system and reward system is will be there the incitivize the sellers to stop selling and enjoy the passive income. Would you delist if you were making a 0.17$ for a week on NFT?
It was the case before you guys were even in tbh. We’ve talked with paras 2 months ago when they first announced the staking system. They simply forgot about us and open the staking for ASAC first.
Hmm some point to discuss herre:
" 1. I dont care about your Q1 planning you announced something you were expected to do that specific thing and also don’t care about the Paras/Ref ties. We are not trying to centralize everything on paras we are trying to decentralize everything in the ecosystem."
I considered the Ref team has a rational reason to not step on each other foot, as the gains from building a staking nft site doesn’t worth the cost of losing Paras partnership… just because u don’t care about the partnership doesnt meant it worth nothing… both have to relied on each other to make it IMO
"3. Yeah we are trying to change that or dont do it at all. But the $REF rewards you proposed are such a joke. Even Paras offering more with their staking system. "
One of the reasons that I think paras was willing to let these 2 projects have a big rewards it’s because those are Paras’s golden gooses. Paras is an NFT marketplace, they make money from the selling volume, and the more utility these NFT has, the more secondary sales, hence the more revenue they have - which are expected be more $NEAR in return than the $PARAS they give out
But what about Ref.- the NFT holders can earn $REF by staking, but what do $REF got in return… ? if u can list out how can NearNauts + ASAC
accrue value to Ref in a long road, then pls do because so far i only see that Ref can get exposure to NearNauts + ASAC community + Marketing engagement
Staking doesnt make give Ref profit, trading token is. You guys staking NFT doesnt accure any fee=> profit for ref (at least until the team found out a way to capture value)
Hence for exposure + marketing, around 1000 $REF maybe short i give u that, but it’s shouldn’t be compared to a pool farming standard
The fact that you don’t care also means you’re not listening. The creation of another NFT staking platform has nothing to do with the centralization/decentralization of the ecosystem. We simply want users to be as beneficial as possible, if Ref creates an NFT staking platform, both users and rewards will be splited - meaning if they stake their NFT on Ref, they won’t get PARAS rewards and vice versa - i don’t see the benefit of this, why not just focus on 1 platform where you will earn both?
as many have stated above, the proposal is open for discussion.
Of course Paras is offering more, that is because these collections are generating volume so it makes sense for them. But Ref is a DEX, not a NFT-related project/ platform, we just simply support these collections and in exchange (hoping) to get some traction/support from their community.
Additionally, it is important for us to be mindful of the token emission, as we don’t want it to be inflated.
Woooow @finance_ref really fucked up the staking rewards
We didn’t. Everything is open up for discussion, if you can please retract the tweet.
The dollar value of a partnership can always be revised as long as there is good will from both parties and interest/support from the community.
Some of your points are based on two BIG assumptions:
ALL NFTs are staked. All Rewards allocated to a pool are distributed only to people that actually stake, and If you look around, those percentages are actually quite small, hence why the APY% ends up being much higher. This is true for liquidity pools (i.e. ‘OMG such few REF rewards allocated to a NEAR pool when there are ONE BILLION+ NEAR in circulation…’), and for revenue share style vaults (xREF, xTRI, etc.). NFT staking is novel, we also make some initial calculations and as the market evolves and we have more data we can continue to improve (growth mindset).
The price of REF will stay the same (fixed mindset). REF is currently a fraction of what is was several months ago. What would have to be true for the price to increase again? There are both broader market uncertainties - which are out of our control, but I am optimistic long term - and then there are the actions taken by REF team to create value. If this initiative does not fall under the value creation bucket - helping increase the price of REF and subsequent APYs into the future - then it is not worth pursuing (flip and dump jpegs, don’t jeopardise our project).
Finally, I’d like to close with a question - are these kind of interactions damaging REF’s standing on the NFT communities or are the NFT communities (and specific individuals and their NFT ‘consulting firms’) the ones burning their reputation with the Defi world?
The idea here is not to create frustrations, but to hear the community and let everyone partake in the launch of the above proposal. As it is a proposal, metrics can be updated.
If the community considers $REF rewards should be increase, they may very well be increase, however, a clear argumentation as to why more is needed and how it will benefice all makes for a greater negotiation point.
Additionally, in my honest opinion, exclusivity is for shilling, as we are building Blockchain ecosystems for growth, I see this proposal benefiting 4 communities together with each other instead of against one another. Bridging between DeFi & NFT communities within NEAR to create more noise for NEAR overall, is good for everyone here.
With this said, what happens in terms of partnerships agreements outside of Ref and between other communities isn’t the responsibility of Ref. Again, this is for the benefice of community growth and visibility, not to compete and have a pump and dump mentality.
Just a normie but I think the idea is great. I’m gonna hold my NFT regardless, if I can stake it and receive tokens I want to invest in anyway even better. I get staking rewards I can use however I please, demand for the project I’m invested possibly increases which benefits me indirectly and paras directly through fees, and more users are introduced into ref ecosystem. Everyone wins?
Yeah lets say %50 will be staked which is very low for a NFT project. 0.34$ right now.
Quick reminder that price of ref could go down in the next months too. It doesnt provide value to me and will definitely not gonna use ref in the near future.
If you can step outside from your forum and go into the some discord groups or even maybe go into the discord of the nauts you can see what everybody thinks about it. I am the only one saying it here since you didnt came in. I’m not burning my reputation if my reputation burns through this then be it is. I only raise my concerns and my true thoughts on twitter and also on my ‘Consulting Firm’.
I dont think you will increase it that much tbh since the offer is already so low but it does need increase. Why? Because you can make a better stand out within the community of NFT’s. You are only known by 4 community right now. By increasing daily or weekly payouts for the asac and nauts community will create a demand for potential spots for other projects and a potential interest on your side and will be heard by every community in the NFT scene.
3.You dont want to create a bad noise tho. Seems like you are only giving so little and trying to onboard loads. I’m just basically saying you cant.
I gotcha.
This is my last comment on the proposal and won’t be commenting more on it. If you want to reach out to me DM me through twitter. Thx for the discussion.
