Liquidity Parameters Discussion (Part 1) | How much ETH liquidity do we start with?

Liquidity Parameters Discussion (Part 1) | How much ETH liquidity do we start with?


In this discussion, members will mainly focus on the amount of ETH that is available in the pools immediately after launching the mechanism, in the short term and in the long term.

The aim is to get members to agree on a path forward for opening redemptions at a high level before discussing the parameters themselves in more detail in Part 2.

During Part 1, we have the three (3) main questions listed below that members need to discuss and share their view of how much ETH will be needed in the pools at launch and over a longer-term period.


At the end of the first week, members should have several options that can be used to create a Snapshot signalling vote, which will be used to gauge member sentiment on the liquidity provided in the short and long term.


Question 1: What is the amount of NXM/ETH that should be able to be redeemed and exit in the short-term at a price close to book value (BV)?

One of the aims of the tokenomics revamp is to provide some level of exit liquidity at a price close to Book Value. This aim was set as a result of the current situation with the bonding curve, which prevents redemptions directly from the protocol while liquidity is less than the current MCR floor.

The answer to this question should aim to address the needs of members:

  • Who wish to exit but feel like they haven’t been able to do so with the current bonding curve and MCR floor; and
  • Who are long-term aligned and wish to retain capital in the mutual

The answer to this question will inform parameters related to initial liquidity and the additional liquidity provided in the short term, which will be discussed in more detail during Part 2 of this discussion.

Question 2: Over what timeframe (the initial exit period) should this NXM be redeemed?

Similarly to Question 1, the balance is between members wishing to exit as soon as possible and the interests of long-term aligned members who see the current size of the capital pool as crucial to cover growth. Achieving an outcome that works for both groups will help to smooth out the immediate likely loss of capital.

The answer to the initial exit period question will inform parameters related to initial liquidity injection and ratchet speed, which will be discussed in more detail during Part 2 of this discussion.

Question 3: In the long term, how long should it take to get down to the Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR) based on the current cover amount, assuming everyone exits at maximum speed?

This question is equivalent to ‘How long should we give the mutual to use the current capital pool size to back new covers?’

The current size of the capital pool is ~145,700 ETH. The MCR based on the current cover amount is ~5,000 ETH.

The capital pool we currently have represents a competitive edge and is attractive to cover buyers and staking pools building on top of Nexus Mutual, and the protocol should be given some time to achieve growth and utilise this capital to realise the benefits of it. On the other hand, keeping underutilised capital locked in the pool cannot be a permanent outcome. The answer to this question should find a balance between those two viewpoints.

The answer to this question will inform parameters related to the long-term liquidity injection speed, which will be discussed in more detail during Part 2 of this discussion.

Timeframe for Discussion

This discussion will take place from Monday (14 August) until Saturday (26 August).

  • During the first week (14–20 August), members can discuss, share analysis, and come to a consensus on the potential answers to these questions.
  • Once members have shared their views, the R&D team will use the community’s responses to create a non-binding Snapshot signalling vote to gauge sentiment around how much initial liquidity should be provided.

Snapshot signalling vote

Once members share their views and several options are available, three (3) Snapshot signalling votes will be created to gauge members’ sentiment on the answers to the three questions posed above.

The Snapshot signalling votes will be open for voting from 21–26 August.

Overview & Resources

We’ve outlined the scope of the Liquidity Parameters Discussion in the Overview post. You can refer to this post for an introduction to both Parts 1 & 2 of this discussion.

If you have questions about the Ratcheting AMM (RAMM) or you want to learn more about the RAMM itself, please see the Pre-Discussion Phase: RAMM Education Guide, Call for Questions post.


We had some comments during the education phase that it’s hard to tell how many people actually want to exit in the short term. Some suggested holding a snapshot poll of NXM/wNXM holders. However, didn’t really see that providing any reliable information - no rational actor is going to signal that they want to sell their tokens.

As an alternative - wanted to provide some overview on the distribution of NXM and wNXM to help inform the discussion.

To be clear, based mainly on assigning categories depending on when NXM was acquired by the holding addresses, so not bulletproof, but hopefully better than nothing.

Will only discuss at high level, don’t want to doxx anyone, but DYOR etc.

Category (w)NXM Holding Constituents
Long-term aligned ~3.1m Foundation, Treasury, Team, VCs
Likely short-term sellers ~700k Large holders that obtained their (typically w)NXM either around the time of the buyback in late 2021, or especially since tokenomics discussions August 2022 onwards
Other ~3m Exchanges (Uniswap excl. above, Binance), unknown whales, smaller holders

Based on the above, would expect:

  • ~10% of holders to want to exit in the “short term” with high probability,
  • ~45% be long-term aligned, so will sell relatively little with high probability,
  • with the rest unknown.

Hey Rei!

Appreciate your continued work on the matters :slight_smile:

We spoke a little on this the last educational call I attended! I feel like 10% may be a bit low - I think it could provide beneficial to overestimate rather than underestimate here. I think a 30% figure sounds a lot better in my head. Maybe safer to assume a large majority of wrapped nxm (wnxm) wants to exit as my assumption would be they would have unwrapped by now if long term aligned.

1 Like

Hey @NxmMaxi,

Not everyone who holds wrapped NXM does so because they want to sell. Because NXM can only be held in a registered membership address, people use wrapped NXM to hold NXM across other addresses as part of good opsec practices.

I’ve analyzed the NXM and wrapped NXM holders myself, and I’m fairly confident that somewhere between 650k to 850k NXM is likely to exit if the new tokenomics are approved by members.

  • 10% of the NXM supply = 675,923 NXM
  • 14% of the NXM supply = 946,293 NXM, which I think it a fairly accurate estimate for the # looking to exit
  • 30% of the NXM supply = 2.03m NXM

Assuming 30% means you believe everyone who holds wrapped NXM wants to exit, which I’d disagree with. I look forward to other people sharing their thoughts and analysis.

I’d be curious if you have any data that reflects 30% of the NXM supply looking to exit?

Edit: Just wanted to say thank you, @NxmMaxi, for sharing your thoughts! It’s important to get differing views, so we can have an accurate signalling vote next week. Thanks for being engaged and participating in this discussion :turtle:

1 Like

Hey! @BraveNewDeFi Not saying everyone is going to sell that holds wrapped, I understand the opsec reasons. My point was more so that it would make much more sense to overestimate this number than to lowball.

As of right now no one here has hard data - just assumptions. Why not signal vote? At the very least gives us a data point to work from / allow us to get a very rough estimate of capital looking to exit.

Unless you have data pointing towards the 14% number? I think this is quite a low number.

Say we use a 10-14% data point in terms of capital looking to exit - but in reality the number is 10-15% higher… think of the downside risks this comes with. In comparison to maybe overestimating - does this come with downsides? I personally do not see any - worst case we can scale back.

1 Like

As @Rei highlighted:

This is based on my analysis of all the NXM and wNXM holders and their activity, wallet holdings, etc.

I also held the assumption that people who bought wrapped NXM during the buyback discussion period in 2021 and people who bought wrapped NXM since the tokenomics revamp project has made progress this year are likely to sell. @Rei has taken a similar view, which he noted:

Hello @BraveNewDeFi and NXM Team,

Would the signaling vote apply to WNXM holders too? If not, I propose we create a WNXM snapshot page where holders can signal their willingness to exit the mutual in order to give us accurate numbers when it comes to ETH liquidity needed.

The Nexus Mutual DAO Snapshot space will be used, which allows anyone with NXM to participate in signalling votes.

Anyone can create a separate Snapshot space for non-members—feel free to do that, if you’d like.

Before we get to the signalling vote stage, we need to have people share their views on how to answer the three questions in the Part 1 post.

So far, @Rei has estimated 10% of the NXM supply; @NxmMaxi has suggested 30% of the NXM supply; and I’ve estimated 14-15% of the NXM supply.

As others share their views, we’ll get a better sense of what the choices for the Question 1 signalling vote next week.

And as a reminder to everyone–we still need to answer Questions 2 & 3 :slightly_smiling_face:


Hey all

Massive props to @BraveNewDeFi @Rei and the whole team for getting to this point and engaging the community in a structured way.

I’ve seen many projects work on tokenomics and make meaningful attempts to get to book value to ensure holders get a worst case fair value for their token, and it never goes as smoothly as y’all are making it go. Keep up the good work!

I agree with rei that a signal vote of wnxm and nxm holders wont tell us the full picture, but its hard to estimate a real number.

Some points I’m thinking about

  • We’ve seen funds like Parafi selling on the AMM, they likely will exit their entire stack. Has the team discussed with other funds on what they plan to do? If so their supply should be considered as want to exit

  • In the worst case we should assume all nxm/wnxm purchased below book value would exit at book value. We have been below book since like sep 2021, my gut says 2 years of being trapped below would mean far more than just 10% want out

  • Is there much downside to over estimating? Why not set it at 30% (or higher), and if its not all used then reduce later. One of the goals of this process is to show the crypto world that nxm can be trusted and the token is backed, if we let the fastest people out at the highest price and then screw those that take their time and trust the mutual more it would only hurt the reputation further.


  • I dont think there’s any advantage to making this timeframe long. If we force people to wait 1y+ to get out then they will be frustrated and sell to an arbitrager who is willing to wait. It would be best to let people out quickly (1-2 months) so longer term decision making can happen with those that want to stay and are aligned. The middle ground (2m - 1y) probably just frustrates every party.


  • with only 5k ETH in covers of 145k I don’t think its possible to get low enough for this to be a problem. If we do then so many people want out of NXM that an unwind should just be considered. I think even the founder and team would have to want to leave. A lot of this capital is likely dead/forgotten about as well and will forever stay with the mutual.
1 Like

Hey everyone and a big thanks to @Rei and @BraveNewDeFi for all the work and coordination. Here are my personal views on the key questions.

Question 1: What is the amount of NXM/ETH that should be able to be redeemed and exit in the short-term at a price close to book value (BV)?

It’s very hard to estimate how much NXM wants to exit in the short term (1-2 month post launch) but I’m inclined to believe it’s in the 10-20% range.

The second part of this question is how much capital should we allocate to support this exit. We can either under target, try to get it as close as possible or over target. So I thought I’d outline the pros/cons of under allocating vs over allocating as it helps to understand which way we want to err given we’re never really going to know what the actual number is.

  • Over allocating gives greater confidence in the ability to exit the mutual, and therefore should help in attracting capital in the future once the mutual grows demand.

  • Over allocating favours short term exitors over long term holders if we allocate too much and have to reduce in the future.

  • Under allocating causes greater slippage if exits outweigh liquidity. This favours long term holders to the extent it’s not too bad. If there is greater slippage book value per NXM increases. If slippage is too much then it could reinforce the existing reputation issue on the ability to exit.

  • The mutual’s largest strategic benefit by far is it’s existing capital pool, this continues to secure deals such as Sherlock, Uno Re, TRM and Liquid Collective. Over allocating directly reduces this strategic benefit.

All up, my preference is to err on the side of under-allocating, but it can’t be by too much. This is primarily because it will generally favour long term holders over short term exitoors.

For these reasons I think we should be targeting initial exit liquidity (over a 1 month period) of around 10-15%.

Question 2: Over what timeframe (the initial exit period) should this NXM be redeemed?

Hard to gauge exactly but I think targeting 1-2 months here is reasonable. I’d probably err on the lower end of the spectrum so 1 month.

Question 3: In the long term, how long should it take to get down to the Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR) based on the current cover amount, assuming everyone exits at maximum speed?

Strategically I think we want about 3 years here before MCR gets hit (at max speed). This means that something like 50% of the capital pool would exit in 1.5 years (on the assumption of flat covers), which is quite a meaningful number but also gives required time to hit growth.

Crypto growth cycles are very extreme. A lot of it is about being in the right place and building the foundations during bear markets to be positioned well for the bull and then ride the wave. If we give up large swathes of capital just before the next bull that would be a huge strategic error in my view, so I would set a long time frame here to make sure we can take advantage of the next bull. If for whatever reason that doesn’t happen, the capital can be released faster at a later point, but you can’t go the other way.

Using 3 years, that allows roughly 7% of the capital pool to exit every 3 months, so if we allow 10-15% to exit over the first month then it’s 17-22% over the first 4 months.

Overall, these are quire hard questions to answer but I do believe we can support both members who wish to exit and those who wish to stay long term. My preference will always be to err on the side of the long term members. If we need to adjust slightly later we can always do so.

1 Like

Thanks all for the contributions thus far to the forum. I would like to preface my response by saying that this is likely the singularly most pivotal discussion point for the entirety of the “Tokenomics Upgrade”. It’s absolutely imperative we get this right, because failure to do so will take us back firmly at square one, namely: Stuck capital, frustrated mutual members and broken NXM/wNXM tokenomics for another 2 years, resulting in a slow drain to the right exit % (which we should’ve reached in the first place) and outside capital that want nothing to do with us regardless of whether the fabled Bull Market will come (or not).

Let me be absolutely clear, the initial exit period needs to be swift i.e. sub 1 month. This seems to be a non-contentious issue. What is also absolutely important is that the quantum is sufficiently high. Based on my own network which I’ve surveyed and looking at the LP up to BV I can say with 95% certainty at least 650k wNXM would like to exit close to BV. Now I likely do not have the largest network, nor is it likely that I’ve spoken to all wNXM holders, so you can imagine my concern when I’ve reached close to 100% of Rei/Hugh’s estimation and 70% of Brave’s upper bound.

I am frankly disappointed, mutual members are being asked to fly blind here with zero hard data and as such I implore the Operations team to either corroborate this figure of 10-15% which, according to everyone I spoke to including wNXM whales and relatively old mutual members is egregiously low, or conduct further analysis to reach the verifiably correct answer and publish such work for us to review. Thankfully, we have earmarked two weeks for this discussion period and as such I believe we have more than enough time to do this.

Other ancillary points, firstly, Rei, I don’t think you’re right regarding the signaling vote. From a game theoretic perspective, if the capital pool has enough ETH to buy out the entirety of WNXM supply (which it does) then it is one’s incentive to signal that one would like to exit to ensure the team provide sufficient capacity to do so. wNXM holders do not and will not need to play games because of the abundant capacity in the capital pool. Secondly, the third question is moot if we get the first two parameters right, because the mutual will have filtered for the long term holders within the month and successfully shrunk NXM supply. It makes no economic or marketing sense to theoretically ‘market’ the token as asset-backed but practically lock members out of that asset-backing for another year. Thirdly, Hugh, it is unclear why you think capital will only flow out and not in. If covers successfully grow in such a crypto bull-run, and NXM yield is sufficiently high, the market will indeed reprice the asset and there will indeed be buyers above BV. This feels like a cop out. Sorry.

Overall, I firmly believe the answer to Q1 provided has been grossly under-reported and we would all love to see some further data before we head down the wrong path here. And whilst i’m under no illusion that governance is not a charade, I firmly believe the mutual would do well to heed the comments of active posters here.


Hey Hugh!

Thanks for the thoughts:

I am quite confused at the rationale that providing people less liquidity - the people that wish to exit will. Providing less liq just drags this process out longer. After the first wave this should stabilize quite quick. If more liq is provided the people who do not want to exit wont exit because theres more liq? So i am all quite confused at the distain to try and lowball the number.

We have ample capital to do so… our active covers are under 50m

1 Like

I just wanted to share a little more information to provide some context for the discussion, and I’ll also share my personal options on answers to the three questions.

I can’t speak for the Foundation team, but in my personal analysis, I did mark some of the top wNXM holders, a couple of which appear to be funds, as potential sellers. I shared that 15% of NXM holders are likely to exit, which would be 1,013,884.31 NXM (21,859.35 ETH worth at BV). I haven’t talked to any funds during the tokenomics project, but I’m hoping a variety of the larger NXM holders participate in this discussion, as well.

I also think it’s helpful to see a breakdown of what the suggested NXM supply percentages equate to.

% of NXM Supply Amount of NXM ETH Added to RAMM
10% 675,922.88 14,572.90
15% 1,013,884.31 21,859.35
20% 1,351,845.75 29,145.79
25% 1,689,807.19 36,432.24
30% 2,027,768.63 43,718.69
35% 2,365,730.07 51,005.14
40% 2,703,691.50 58,291.59

As for data and analysis–anyone can review the NXM and wNXM holders on Etherscan. As a note: wNXM is a subset of the NXM supply, so the total NXM supply should be the percentage (%) that we refer to, for sake of clarity.

Initial Exit Period vs. Liquidity Over Longer Timeframe

I also wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the liquidity we’re talking about for the initial exit period isn’t the only liquidity that will be provided to the RAMM.

Liquidity for Initial Exit Period

If members signal they want to see 20% of the NXM supply/capital pool added as liquidity to the RAMM during the initial exit period–and members signal a 1-month initial exit period–then there would be 29,145.79 ETH allocated to the RAMM for the 1-month exit period.

Liquidity for Long-Term Timeframe

After the initial exit period ends, the RAMM would have a defined target liquidity, which members would set, and that liquidity level will be maintained through the liquidity speed in fior the below pool and liquidity speed out for the above pool.

Say the target liquidity for the longer-term ends up being 10,000 ETH:

  • If members redeem NXM for ETH, then liquidity will be injected into the below pool to replenish liquidity
    • This would be done until the cover-driven MCR kicks in, which, as highlighted in the initial post, is ~5,000 ETH

The mutual would only end up in an MCR-lock situation if the cover-driven MCR is hit at some time in the future.

I just want to make sure that everyone understands the liquidity for the intial exit period isn’t the only liquidity that will be allocated to the RAMM.

Initial Exit Period Liquidity

@NXMBull Based on the conversations you’ve had, what do you believe is a more accurate number for the initial exit liquidity?

@NxmMaxi Is the 30% of the NXM supply still the figure that you believe best represents the amount of liquidity that should be allocated during the initial exit period?

@dcfgod Based on the conversations you’ve had, what do you believe is a more accurate number for the initial exit liquidity?

NXM vs. wNXM

It’s also important to note that people who hold wNXM and are not members of the mutual won’t be able to redeem wNXM for ETH through the RAMM, as only NXM can be used within the Nexus Mutual protocol.

While wNXM sell pressure will have an impact on the liquidity for the initial exit period, if people don’t join as members, unwrap to NXM, and redeem from the RAMM, then they’ll sell on the open market and it’s likely people who are long-term aligned members buy and hold OR people who are members looking to take advantage of any slight arbitrage buy and redeem, as the ratchet mechanism moves toward BV.

Just wanted to make sure everyone in the discussion is aware of this fact.

My answers to the three questions

Question 1: What is the amount of NXM/ETH that should be able to be redeemed and exit in the short-term at a price close to book value (BV)?

As I shared previously, based on my analysis I think 15% of the NXM supply looking to exit is a pretty accurate number. However, I’d add a 5% buffer and say 20% of the NXM supply would be enough to meet the sell pressure I anticipate at launch.

Happy to hear everyone else’s thoughts, too, and I appreciate @dcfgod, @NxmMaxi, @NXMBull, @Rei and @Hugh for sharing their thoughts so far.

Question 2: Over what timeframe (the initial exit period) should this NXM be redeemed?

I think a 1-month initial exit period is the right length. Once the RAMM launches, we’ll want to make sure everyone is aware it has been launched and have an opportunity to exit, if they’d like to. The 1-month timeframe gives everyone a fair chance to redeem NXM for ETH, if they wish to exit in the short term.

Question 3: In the long term, how long should it take to get down to the Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR) based on the current cover amount, assuming everyone exits at maximum speed?

I agree with @Hugh that 3 years to reach the cover-driven MCR (~5,000 ETH) makes sense. That gives the Foundation and DAO teams enough time to drive growth and adoption, while giving members access to liquidity during that timeframe, as well.


I still believe the number should be in the 30% range - 10% is far too small as per @NXMBull comments.

I think the bare minimum should be 25% and the additional buffer to be safe brings that to 30%. Based on the actions of entities like parafi selling, large holders accumulating post RAMM discussions / buybacks ect.

It would be a massive mistake allocating under 25% imo

1 Like

I would start on the lesser side for initial liquidity. Can always add more liquidity if needed but difficult to undo adding too much liquidity

1 Like

My bias is for “max liquidity, short duration” as a pressure-release valve as well as a sentiment capturing tool.

Something like 30% for 2 weeks, then re-evaluate based upon real-world response.

  • If it is an overallocation, then within 2 weeks excess funds can be pulled back into the treasury as an informed liquidity level is set for the long term.
  • If it is an under-allocation, then we’ll be glad to avoid a lot of public kicking and screaming as exiting becomes highly visible and animus PvP.

There’s never going to be a perfect way to know the ultimate initial redemption % (without a 2-stage whitelist or something of the like). Everyone’s going to have their own opinions, colored by their motivations and data sources.

I’d just target for getting through the first 2 weeks smoothly with minimal pain, and use it as the data-gathering step that’s used for setting long-term liquidity pool levels.


Personally am looking to exit as I disagree with the mutual chasing growth in stablecoin denominated business lines and the inevitable alm rebalance of the capital pool away from eth.

I also think there is a lot of “trapped” capital from Defi summer in Rei’s bucket 3 (am broadly in agreement with the assessment of l-t aligned and s-t sellers) but agree is hard to model. The low level of staking in v2 does suggest at the margin that there is a lot of capital currently in the mutual that is pretty disengaged and potentially looking for an exit. All things considered I would be advocating that at least 20% of NXM to be allocated to the RAMM in the initial exit period.

Am happy with a 1-2 month timeframe for q2 as suggested by many others and don’t have a strong view on q3 as not intending to be active on that timeframe.


May I ask what is difficult about pulling liq and adding it back into the treasury?

Do you think its more troublesome then undercutting the amount looking to exit - creating a toxic exiting situation?


Thanks to all the previous commenters, some very good points were raised.

From my side, I’ll start with a basic premise that I think and hope we all can agree on:
Holders who want to exit will redeem their holdings, as soon as possible. Holders who are long-term aligned won’t redeem, regardless of the available liquidity.

Therefore, limiting the initial liquidity available, or extending time frames, do not increase or decrease the amount of holders who want to exit (or affects the size of the capital pool after all holders who want to exit have redeemed) but it makes this process longer and more burdensome.

Based on this premise, my answers to the three questions
Question 1: What is the amount of NXM/ETH that should be able to be redeemed and exit in the short-term at a price close to book value (BV)?

All of it. Everything that is not already committed in investments. I don’t see any issues with overshooting. Providing adequate liquidity doesn’t increase the amount of people who wants to exit. The only issue that can arise here is if the amount is undershot and an exit queue of undetermined length is formed. Which will reflect poorly on the mutual (again). If it is at least 3.1m tokens which won’t redeem (treasury, foundation, VC, team, etc.), so I’d set up enough ETH for the other 3.6m NXM tokens.

Question 2: Over what timeframe (the initial exit period) should this NXM be redeemed?

Just set up enough liquidity, and let people who want to exit to do it at their convenience. I also don’t see any issue if the liquidity is in place and everybody who wants to exit redeems it on the first day. Again, long term aligned holders will not redeem, so maybe after the first day, this process is done. And if there is excess liquidity after all exiting holders have redeemed, the mechanism of the rAMM will remove liquidity every day until reaching the target liquidity. But everybody wanting to exit would have done so, so there would be no more redemptions. So, why not?

Question 3: In the long term, how long should it take to get down to the Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR) based on the current cover amount, assuming everyone exits at maximum speed?

Ok, this sounds like you’re planning to set up another artificial limitation for redeeming? first it was the MCRfloor, and now you’re removing it, but still want to prevent people from leaving, i. e. getting their funds from the capital pool? But they will anyway, sooner or later, eventually using the target liquidity. So, again this limitation prevents nothing and only makes the process longer. The only limitations I’d understand is 1) MCR, and 2) large redemptions are subject to some redemption period. The limit that this question refers to, in my opinion, makes no sense, and it just seems to suggest that the foundation is trying to gain some time hoping that there’s a new bull run coming soon. Which may or may not happen.

One last thought. Considering that the capital pool contains 145k ETH, that 3.1m NXM tokens won’t redeem (i. e. at least ~67k ETH will remain in the capital pool no matter what) and that based on existing covers the MCR is just 5k ETH, it’s very difficult to justify not providing a lot of liquidity.

That’s all from my side.


It seems that minimizing the amount of ETH contributed to the redemption pool will only delay the inevitable and cause tension as noted above. It appears that the only stated reason to delay contributing a sizeable amount of funding to the RAMM is the prospect of future growth. If markets are efficient, and these prospects are actually viable and NPV positive, the DAO will be able to attract additional funding in the future to capture those prospects. Until then, a massive amount of funding remains unallocated and should be returned as fast as possible.