When CORE has been launched some months ago, a new stance brought a fresh air to the staking system: The liquidity pool was one way only and you couldn’t remove your LP position anymore.

This system was frequently used by scammers who were the only ones able to remove it for their own benefit. Adapting the situation to a new token was smart and informative on how some solidity functions can change the whole behavior of token economics.

Again, many copy-pasters came around scamming people with projects minting tokens for their own benefit, even though they locked the liquidity. But again, is there a lesson to learn from that?

One of the problem with CORE is that building a big liquidity pool means less tokens in circulation. Obviously, it will improve its market price, but it will reduce the number of transactions as well, meaning less taxes, meaning less rewards. While before people removing their LP position was a big problem for the stakers themselves, not being able to move them around has some flaws.

In the middle of this problem, there’s an elegant answer to find. What if the token was slowly minting new ones when many are “stuck” within the liquidity pool, so the circulating supply (understand, not counting the liquidity pool tokens) was coming closer to the theorical total supply?

For example, for a theorical total supply of 10,000 tokens, the system would mint up to 4,000 ne tokens over 4 months if 6,000 were kept within the liquidity pool. Obviously, the amount of tokens in the LP changes over time, especially at the beginning, meaning it has to stay a slow process to avoid any manipulation as well.

Change of the circulating and total supply over days

Considering the metrics, the UDL token will mint 0.01% of the missing circulating supply (total supply - LP supply) each 15 minutes to the staking pool. The stakers will not only benefit from the minting process, but will be able to catch more rewards from more valuable transactions as well.

Another problem with the staking systems is that the stackers hold the gas investments. You have to approve first and then pay a large gas limit to stake. Then you have to pay again such a price once you want to unstake. The stakers are the ones to invest a lot of gas for a working staking system.

This is a security problem as well. Some scammers enjoyed using a wrong approval function for people who were used to this staking protocol. Do you actually check in the data what you’re going to approve when you’re staking a new LP token?

This is actually the easiest way for a developer to create a staking pool. But is there another way ?

The UDL token will handle it differently :

  • You don’t have to approve anything. You just declare you own LP tokens to the staking pool. You will then stake automatically, and the LP tokens won’t even leave your wallet ;

Such a system implies some more gas on each UDL transaction. It means the gas cost moves from the stakers to the traders. It might also have some impact on the way the front-runners jump on uniswap to tax your investment. The gas cost might make their operations more difficult.

As you can see, the UDL token is going to take a new stance. The reality of the market will tell if it’s a good one, which explains the “uniDeal eXperiment” title our the project. But one thing is sure: the stakers get a better position with such a system.

Just remember the token will end up having a use case as well. More ideas will be brought to a dealing platform and a decentralised exchange. The purpose is to test complete new stances on these problems.

Follow us on the telegram channel. Right now we will start recruiting 100 betatesters to test the token live before the launch. They will get a priority over the whitelist as well. Don’t hesitate to register by filling the form.

Telegram discussion channel: https://t.me/unidealdiscussion
Telegram announcement channel: https://t.me/unidealofficial