Improve the liquidity of INST

Current liquidity:

  1. On Ethereum, INST-ETH Uniswap pool ( only has 58 ETH. Liquidity has continued to drop from the highest liquidity of 2500 ETH to 58 ETH, at the current fading rate, ETH will be exhausted next month, losing liquidity is a terrible thing for a Defi project.

  2. On Polygon, INST-ETH Uniswap pool only has 20 ETH liquidity.

  3. Some small CEXs have few liquidity.

Current incentives:

The current incentives are divided into three parts:
A, Uniswap V3 lp incentives;
B, Uniswap Staker incentives;
C, Maker/Aave incentives for positions.

A incentive have been completely de-anchored, and the price has fallen below the range. This has led to the fact that miners do not need to provide eth liquidity (very few eth, less than 0.001) to participate liquidity mining.

B incentive is too complicated, most people don’t understand it, very few people participate, and the effect of improving liquidity is also not achieved.

C incentive is basically for the big players to mine and sell.

On the whole, I think the current liquidity mining incentive scheme is ineffective. In addition to continuous selling, it has not been able to introduce new liquidity and needs to be improved as soon as possible.


  1. To improve the liquidity mining plan to achieve the purpose of increasing liquidity, we need to evaluate the effect of each incentive plan.

  2. Promote mainstream CEX listing as soon as possible. On the one hand, it will help strengthen INSTDAPP’s brand building and expand the retail market. On the other hand, it will also increase liquidity. Market Maker/LP is only profitable when trades are active.

  3. Introduce a staking mechanism, protocol incomes repurchase $INST, and incentivize long-term holders.


I want to say that in the past period of time, we have made great achievements in the project. The project team is great, innovative, and functional. The continuous update and research and development are respectable. This is also the reason why many users have been supporting the project and holding Token patiently.
However, we should pay more attention to the empowering role of Token, gradually increase more focus and liquidity, and expand more user groups.

Yes, compared with traditional finance, the very important factor in DEFI is that it mobilizes the power of the community, attracts the community to participate in governance through TOKEN, and enjoys the benefits of project development.
It is very important to ensure the sufficient liquidity of the protocol TOKEN and to match the development of the project. I admit that the team is working very hard and has made a lot of progress. I just hope that the team will also pay attention to the voice of INST Holders.

I fully support all proposals. Moreover, the team must inform the community about the roadmap for at least the next 6 months.


Uniswap Info Volume 24h on Polygon is 0, total liquidity is 19 ETH

No liquidity, No volume. The current liquidity cannot reach the effective distribution of tokens, and newcomers are afraid to buy (because they cannot exit with low slippage after buying). Hope that the team can pay attention to liquidity issues, which is now a disaster for traders and holders.


The liquidity mining thus far has distributed a lot of INST, but has also created a lot of selling pressure of the token. Specifically, the latest Uniswap staking rewards have incentivized users to swap INST for ETH whenever their position falls out of their range, which makes the price drop further. This has been an ongoing cycle since September without any positive catalyst. This is scheduled to end January 15, 2022.

I’m curious to see what happens once LM ends. I would love to have further conversation around INST staking and how that can be incorporated into Interop or other processes. I would also support further LM ideas, but would most likely be a “no” vote if they were similar to the existing programs.


I thought several following ways:

1.Stakig for protocol fee income.Stake INST and get wINST in return,wINST could be used for voting and gain part of protocol fee.

2.Strengthen staking mechanism like VeCRV.The longer user stake INST,the higher proportion of protocol fee and the larger voting power he will gain.

3.Applying PCV for LP pool. LPs could get the INST with discount at the cost their LP share,it’s just like OlympusDAO bond

4.Treasury buy-back and add liquidty on DEX.As you talk about buy-back INST with protocol fee, part of fee could be used for INST buy-back, and part of fee coud be used for buying Ether or other tokens, then add INST-ETH or INST-XX pair into the pool.


The staking could be rewarded with INST as well if we consider staking pool be the security module for protocol, once the protocol gets exploited,the staking pool will be used for risk compensation firstly.

1 Like

In addition, the plan for liquidity mining needs to have clear KPIs. What benefits does the cost we pay bring to the platform? Is it necessary? I give an example of Balancer LM, Additional KPIs for Liquidity Planning - General Chat - Balancer

Couldn’t agree with this more!! CEX listing is fundamental for awareness which the project team has failed to achieve. @khbw is also right that the incentives are too complicated to understand and the incentives are ineffective with high gas fees and only big players really can play. without your common retail investors, you need huge VC pools. Which is not the case here.


In the direction of marketing and awareness, the team and the community have been inactive for several months. there was a promise of listing on a centralized exchange until the end of last year. We do not see a roadmap, social networks announce once a month, the channel in the telegram is silent for six months, the profitability of the platform is not realized. In general, we are waiting for something incomprehensible, probably when such a platform becomes useless to anyone and defi will flow into bitcoin. I suspect that the team is focused on consulting and earning for Ethereum whales (they get their percentage) who use the platform and are not interested in mass implementation of their protocols - I can’t explain such inaction with anything else

1 Like

Hey Zosim,

We do not do any consulting for individuals or organizations. We are one of the more independent crypto teams IMO. If we did consulting I think our product would look very different.

We have a tentative roadmap here:

We are a tech focused team, you are correct we have been lacking in the marketing department but we believe in building useful products that bring real value. In the last few months we launched Interop and our Flashloan Aggregator, these two products (plus a few more in the works) will allow us to build cross chain platforms and increase our usability in the overall space. But you are right some of our developments have not been expressed clearly. We will release a blog post in February summarizing how all these products will work together and better express our vision for Instadapp.

1 Like

thank you for your attention and detailed response, we are looking forward to the news

What is missing atm in INST’s liquidity pool on Uniswap is a solid base layer of liquidity that allows traders to buy / sell medium amounts without incurring those crazy slippage values that you are seeing right now.

One way of increasing the amount of liquidity in the ETH / INST pair on Uniswap v3 would be to use Olympus Pro combined with creating a relatively wide G-UNI LP pool which is weighted mostly in ETH. This way the DAO gets more ETH (and some INST) into Uniswap to support the currently dropping prices.

We are actually doing the same thing right now for the GEL token. This way no liquidity mining incentives which are dumped immediately have to be paid, the DAO owns the liquidity and generated fees from trading in the process.


There is over 2 Million Dollars worth of Impermanent Loss Protected, Single Sided, INST Liquidity available right now on Bancor. Would create 4 Million Dollars of Protocol Owned Liquidity without the DAO having to supply any counter asset like ETH or give a discount on bonds, and the IL Protection is severely underestimated especially for DAO Treasury solutions. Some pics.

Liquidity Available on Bancor:

Impermanent Loss on ETH-INST Polygon Pool.


I’ve been LP in the INST/ETH pool since the air drop and I have quite an experience in pooling. The most nagging issue is the token liquidity (duh).

The UNI v3 is long time out of range and thus deep out of the money for most of the LP’s. A CEX listing would help spark up a renewed excitement, visibility of the project and introduce trader price speculation/manipulation (volitality). I’d recommend at the return to range in the UNI v3 INST/ETH pool (aprox. 0.004ETH/ 1 INST for me to be at the money), to migrate the liquidity to the Bancor’s IL protected pool and then reconsider the LM incentive.

The LPs are the long term holders and if the price is volatile they earn the fees and stack their holdings, however without the visibility and being out of range this doesn’t happen and many lose the confidence in the project.

1 Like

These are some great suggestions! Instadapp Grants placed a small amount of INST (~5000 INST) in Bancor to increase market depth. This improves the 1 ETH buying slippage by around +10%. Not shown but the 1inch routing is using 60% Bancor and 40% from Uniswap to achieve the better slippage.

@Majo Updating the existing G-UNI range may cause some unintended consequences. I do personally like G-UNI but we may need to create a new ETH/INST pool that is managed vs moving the existing liquidity. This will allow the market to move liquidity overtime, also if we change the price range that forces the older providers into a lower price range.