Fluid price

There is a lot of debate on the timeline on the rented TVL and stuff, so I wanted to share how we approach it at Fluid One of the things we are most proud of is that we have never relied on private LP deals. So how do we attract liquidity and users? It is no secret that new projects need to offer more both in returns and in product quality to compete. We pay an additional 2–3% APR public incentives on stablecoins to attract lenders. Passive capital is always looking for better risk-adjusted returns, and that's the cost of acquiring it. Once you have liquidity, borrowers may come, but only if your terms are competitive. Here Fluid shines with the highest LTVs, lowest liquidation penalties, LP tokens as collateral, etc. This helps us to achieve steady and organic growth without relying on external factors. And to be clear, I'm not saying private LP deals are inherently bad. Probably 9 out of 10 projects have LP deals, and some of them succeeded. This is another type of growth strategy, and it can also pay off. These deals can help bootstrap early traction. TVL grows, revenue appears strong, and the valuation follows. Most users (and even funds) don't check on-chain to see where the TVL comes from, they see the raw metrics and believe in the adoption story. For instance, a project might pay 20% APR on $100M in stablecoins, and the valuation jumps by $400M. That can look great at first glance. But if the project fails to achieve real adoption before those LP deals expire, or if they can’t convince liquid funds to support their token, the whole thing can collapse (many such cases). By the way, there is another type of private LP deals, where projects pay for exclusivity. There are numerous situations where a project pays astronomical fees to the infrastructure/distribution partners (the biggest fee I heard so far is $15m for 1y exclusivity) to secure a partnership and not let competitors in. And as more "institutional" players are coming on-chain, you will be hearing even more exclusive partnership announcements. Just keep in mind that these are not free. So again. LP deals are not right or wrong. They are just another path. But at Fluid, we chose not to take it. But what really doesn't make sense to me is when these deals are used to inflate metrics in an unsustainable and inorganic way: - Paying high incentives for markets that clearly won’t survive without them - Use partners' money to inflate metrics to get more money from them to keep doing that - Over-incentivizing to attract professional farmers who will leave the moment rewards dry up I've seen this over and over again for so many projects and chains. Btw, I believe this is due to a severe lack of competence. At Fluid, we’re playing the long game. Sustainable growth > short-term gains.

There is a lot of debate on the timeline on the rented TVL and stuff, so I wanted to share how we approach it at Fluid One of the things we are most proud of is that we have never relied on private LP deals. So how do we attract liquidity and users? It is no secret that new projects need to offer more both in returns and in product quality to compete. We pay an additional 2–3% APR public incentives on stablecoins to attract lenders. Passive capital is always looking for better risk-adjusted returns, and that's the cost of acquiring it. Once you have liquidity, borrowers may come, but only if your terms are competitive. Here Fluid shines with the highest LTVs, lowest liquidation penalties, LP tokens as collateral, etc. This helps us to achieve steady and organic growth without relying on external factors. And to be clear, I'm not saying private LP deals are inherently bad. Probably 9 out of 10 projects have LP deals, and some of them succeeded. This is another type of growth strategy, and it can also pay off. These deals can help bootstrap early traction. TVL grows, revenue appears strong, and the valuation follows. Most users (and even funds) don't check on-chain to see where the TVL comes from, they see the raw metrics and believe in the adoption story. For instance, a project might pay 20% APR on $100M in stablecoins, and the valuation jumps by $400M. That can look great at first glance. But if the project fails to achieve real adoption before those LP deals expire, or if they can’t convince liquid funds to support their token, the whole thing can collapse (many such cases). By the way, there is another type of private LP deals, where projects pay for exclusivity. There are numerous situations where a project pays astronomical fees to the infrastructure/distribution partners (the biggest fee I heard so far is $15m for 1y exclusivity) to secure a partnership and not let competitors in. And as more "institutional" players are coming on-chain, you will be hearing even more exclusive partnership announcements. Just keep in mind that these are not free. So again. LP deals are not right or wrong. They are just another path. But at Fluid, we chose not to take it. But what really doesn't make sense to me is when these deals are used to inflate metrics in an unsustainable and inorganic way: - Paying high incentives for markets that clearly won’t survive without them - Use partners' money to inflate metrics to get more money from them to keep doing that - Over-incentivizing to attract professional farmers who will leave the moment rewards dry up I've seen this over and over again for so many projects and chains. Btw, I believe this is due to a severe lack of competence. At Fluid, we’re playing the long game. Sustainable growth > short-term gains.