2 posts tagged with "token-launch"

Status: Proposed exact-arithmetic mechanism for externally owned CAV. The independent settlement fractions and CavalRe payable journals below describe the research model. Current contracts implement a narrower Surplus top-up mechanism, summarized after the atomic settlement requirements.

In this proposal, Surplus is externally owned CAV held by the Protocol for sale. CavalRe owns the CAV, authorizes its use, and receives the sale proceeds in CavalRe Treasury. CavalRe and the Protocol are distinct accounting entities.

The mechanism can route independent fractions of the user's pay and receive legs through Reserve. The remaining amounts execute as a CavalRe-owned CAV sale. A pure sale bypasses Reserve and leaves Multiswap prices unchanged. A mixed settlement is accepted when its complete Reserve endpoint passes the gauge-invariant safety condition.

Historical proposal: This article explores a price-preserving Surplus candidate. The implemented settlement policy uses a reduced-pay second quote and Surplus top-ups; it preserves the direct user payout but can change relative pool prices. See Quote Engine for current behavior.

Multiswap pools can hold protocol-owned token inventory in a Surplus account. For a token-launch pool containing a pay asset $A$ and a launched receive asset $B$, the protocol would like to sell available Surplus $B$ without changing the user's direct quote. Some of the user's $A$ can enter Reserve, and the rest can be divided between Rewards and Treasury.

The allocation cannot be chosen independently of pool safety. Protecting the $B$ Reserve changes the physical Reserve endpoint. Preserving the direct relative prices then requires a common price gauge, and that gauge changes the LP Token's total scale.

For a two-asset pool, the resulting allocation problem has a simple solution:

1. available Surplus inventory determines the fraction of $B$ paid by Reserve;
2. LP safety determines the minimum fraction of $A$ that must enter Reserve;
3. an optional configured floor may increase that pay-side Reserve fraction;
4. Rewards and Treasury divide the remainder equally; and
5. an infeasible Surplus attempt uses ordinary direct settlement instead.

The minimum pay allocation is closed form for every $0<e_s<1$. When $e_s=e_P=1/2$, the direct receive quote and the complete receive-side safety boundary are also closed form.

This article derives that candidate from first principles. It is not current implemented protocol behavior.