I’ve seen a lot of these listing governance proposals, mostly proposed by @0xMims. Some of these tokens are questionable to be listed in my opinion.
For example IDRX, an Indonesian Rupiah stablecoin, with an mcap of around USD 500K. Additionally the token contract can be paused, upgraded and accounts can be blacklisted. I argued that this poses high risks to moonwell, with practically no potential for rewards (in terms of fees through high activity).
Then tokens like VVV or AVAIL, both tokens with relatively high mcap but moderate trading volumes, and moderate distribution. Both utility or govt tokens for niche projects. I don’t see how these tokens would create enough rewards for Moonwell, for the relatively high risk they are exposing Moonwell to. Remember that all these new markets allow users to use these tokens as collateral for borrowing. If a malicious party controls huge amounts of these tokens they can borrow massively and then dump their tokens maliciously - which eventually leads to shortfall events on Moonwell. So adding new tokens, is always a risk for the protocol.
Sometimes I wonder why these tokens even pop up in a govt proposal? Because somebody wants Moonwell to have all relevant tokens? Because the token project itself wants to shill it or lock liquidity? Because a bagholder wants to pump it?
I call to discuss listing criteria for new tokens (please point me to such a discussion if I missed that). Examples are:
centralization / decentralization of the token (pausing, blacklisting, governance)
centralization of assets in single wallets or on single entities
mcap (higher = better)
trading volume (higher = better)
transaction numbers and volumes across all ecosystems (more = better)
availability across chain ecosystems, exchanges and dexes
7 native token on Moonwell chains: Base, Optimism
usage potential for defi: arbitraging, directional bets possible, also outside of moonwell?
motivation of the proposing party (project itself? bagholder? paid shill? moonwell ambassador?)
I’ve had a feeling a post like this was in bound for quite some time, and frankly I was thinking about opening this discussion myself to see how this process could be reinforced.
To summarize, Moonwell uses the Moonwell Asset Listing Framework (MALF) to list tokens on the forum for decision-making. These tokens go through what is essentially a three to four step process. The team reaches out to delegates or directly posts a MALF consistent proposal on the forums, and after a certain period the proposal can move to Snapshot, where I act as a facilitator to upload the proposal for its temperature check. As a superdelegate, I can assist projects in review and submission of their MALF, but regardless its a community decision to reject/approve these assets. This is no different than many other protocols (Arbitrum, Aave, etc) which have delegates with large delegations act as facilitators to bring proposals to Snapshot.
As for the MALF itself, it consists of decentralization parameters, market assessments, and general team reputation information, so as to give delegates an accurate view of the team and token. Now, keep in mind that MALF proposals are vetted by Gauntlet and still must go through an onchain vote; thus, if there is concern about the quality of a proposal then this should be affirmed in the forums to signal to other delegates. In terms of process, every team has followed this properly.
Candidly, I’m surprised on the recent votes as well (though they are only at the temperature check stage) and still require Gauntlet safety/risk evaluation and onchain approval. Of course, I am open to hearing any possible suggestions for changes or clarifying anything further.
Yes i’m agree with you the listing criterias should be more restrictive, the protocol is now well established and should only list assets that brings real value to moonwell.
I support your points except the 8 one, everybody should be able to discuss adding whatever asset on moonwell but more restrictive criterias would be sufficient to annihilate bad proposals, and i concur that now some actually may pass and this is problematic.
the point 7 is one that is not well taken in mind rn imo, and to support your points, the velocity and the availability of an asset across chains/eco should be more studied before listing.
Thank you @0xMims for your explanations. I was completely not aware of the MALF and your role in submitting the proposals. Thank you for the clarification.
I was also no aware that these suggestions were first published in the forum as I am more often on the main governance page than here, when I only see a proposal, when it’s out for voting. Should visit the forum more I guess.
Hey 0xMims, can’t you as a super delegate just reject these shitcoin proposals? If you know they’re bad for the Moonwell community, why keep pushing them forward? Too many trash proposals like these will tank community governance participation—people either stop engaging or just vote without even reading the details, and that’s how these shit coins end up getting listed on the market.
Any new user checking out Moonwell and seeing these assets on the core markets is just gonna close the page straight away—only a shitty platform lists shitcoins.
Since you mentioned Arbitrum, a really bad example, word is their governance is basically run by a pack of freeloaders. Those crazy expensive event proposals—hundreds of thousands of bucks with jacked-up costs—keep getting passed no problem ‘cause the people pushing them are tight with a few delegates, all teaming up to mess shit up.