CPS Proposal: Network-Owned-Liquidity

[theconnectooor]

@BennyOptions_LL

Yep that’s right, assuming the CPS contract supports claims from a SCORE and not limited to EOAs. If a contract can claim, it can be trustless execution from start to finish. @errcsool or @theconnectooor may know for certain.

Quickly following up on this, currently the CPS does not support smart contracts claiming funds - if we wanted to add that functionality it would need to be developed.

[Ali]

@BennyOptions_LL

The only thing I disagree with here is the “separate DEX” part. If there were multiple DAO-owned DEXes like Balanced on ICON, I would support POL on let’s say the top 3 based on some metrics I’d need to think about. Your perspective fits more in “government owned”, and I think this is more representative of a political view than anything else.

Some folks like to see governments contract with private companies (i.e. CPS with Balanced), with the belief that private companies are more motivated to make a better quality product, while others believe it’s better for the government to own and operate the companies themselves (i.e. new ICON/CPS owned DEX). Seems you’re more in favor of the latter here, which is fair, just not something I agree with in most instances.

The issue is, you don’t want to start ‘favouritism’, this can become negative and even deter competition. I see a general product which other Dapps can piggy-back off to be more viable in the long term.
I’m not too concerned about ‘chain owned’, the factor is that it is a separate entity from competition.
I am also in favour in supporting ‘private’ dapps.

My idea does not conflict with the current proposal. As I am presenting something for long term, whereas this is short term.

I do think with BTP around the corner, we should look into long-term solutions.