IONX Liquidity Discussion

Hello everyone,

As many of you noticed, our GYSR staking has come to an end and we now need to make a decision about what the next steps look like.

We’d like this choice to be decentralized as there are a few options and IONX holders should make the choice.

With Leptons and NFT Liquidity Mining right around the corner, there will likely be more IONX pouring into the ecosystem, so opening up another round of GYSR IONX deployment may lead to a greater saturation of IONX in the market. We might do well to keep this in mind as this discussion evolves.

For those of you unfamiliar with Leptons or IONX Liquidity mining, here is a brief:

You will soon be able to earn IONX INSIDE your NFT. If your NFT has an interest-bearing Aave asset inside, not only will it earn interest, it will also earn IONX. If you deposit our special LEPTON NFTs, this IONX yield will get a boost.

You can buy Leptons here

We’ve been working on this in the background for nearly two years now and it’s finally ready. The official announcement will be coming soon (enjoy the alpha frens).


We can decide to

  1. Open up an LP Pool for liquidity for IONX (only)
  2. Open up an LP Pool for liquidity for IONX/ETH
  3. Refrain from opening up more LP Pools

And within that decision, we can decide how much we think is worthwhile. The same amount as before? Less?

We’d love to hear your thoughts.


I would be against another Gysr staking or more LP Pools. I support and look forward to Leptons and earning IONX in this new way which encourages using CP protocol.


Maybe we should refrain from opening up more LP Pools, in light of the new Lepton NFTs, I believe we should concentrate on this one. Not only for IONX. This Lepton focuses further on the main themes of Charged Particles protocol.


I agree with the comments above; for now, the focus should be on encouraging folks to engage with the protocol directly. Toward that end, I would love to eventually see liquidity staking moved from Gysr to the NFTs directly – ie, if you have IonX inside of a locked NFT, that IonX would (effectively) earn staking rewards. It would still lock up both the IonX and the staking rewards (perhaps with the “APR” being determined by the lock duration?), but in addition it could still allow the owner some flexibility – as they could sell or transfer the NFT for liquidity (assuming it wasn’t soulbound, of course).


This is a fantastic idea!

1 Like

I’ve seen the arguments given on Telegram about LP providers being left out in the cold, so I would expand my previous proposal to include LP tokens as well. If IonX could be specifically targeted for IonX rewards, I don’t see why certain IonX-LP tokens couldn’t be as well. In that sense, Leptons would replace GYSR tokens for multiplying yields as well, which means funding that would have gone toward buying GYSR tokens (thus supporting their project and community) would instead go to the Charged Particles team and our community (via increased demand for Leptons).

1 Like

I feel Leptons is great to encourage use of the protocol, but it should not be the only way to distribute the token. The barrier to entry for those who do not own a Lepton is 0.9 ETH and this can deter new holders. Also, there will be more risk to buy the token now knowing the market will be saturated with another 20 million IONX from Leptons, and you can’t earn IONX another way to help offset. You can also purchase a lot of IONX directly for 0.9 ETH currently versus when Leptons first were sold, so why would one buy a Lepton now versus just buying IONX? Just food for thought. I think in order to maintain a fair distribution to all of the community, another avenue should be available, with weighted rewards to Lepton holders. The barrier to entry may prevent some from participating. If not GYSR I liked the idea of Rabsurdum for locking IONX in any NFT and earn staking rewards. That will allow all to use protocol and earn IONX without the barrier to entry and the locking mechanism can help reduce selling pressure on the market.

1 Like

I think these are all great points. Would love to hear @robsecord and @benlakoff’s thoughts about this.

1 Like

I like the idea of time-locking IONX in any NFT and locking it into a Lepton with the booster.


I’ll suggest we refrain from opening up more $IONX Liquidity pools since we havr the Lepyon and NFT mining around the corner and this by speculation can lead to pouring in more of $IONX into the market and if this happens might cause even a drop in the value.
It’s better if kegt close since theres another utility being created in which one can earn $IONX by charging up there NFTs.

If we are to reopen any LP, it should be that of $IONX/ETH for there is a chance of gainig market saturation with this.
Just my opinion

1 Like

To my knowledge, you don’t need to have a Lepton to get IonX; Leptons simply act as a multiplier to increase IonX gains (kind of like GYSR tokens). Simply gaining AAVE interest within a Charged Particle unlocks the rewards. I’m further proposing that locking IonX (and perhaps also IonX LP tokens) should also unlock rewards, with a similar/identical multiplier for having Leptons.

Thank you for clarifying, that makes more sense. Yes, I agree with your proposal, would love to be able to lock IONX to earn rewards and the Leptons can be used as a multiplier.

It’s lovely that its now possible to earn $IONX by charging the Lepton NFT, but this can also be like an added utility if the LP for $IONX remains open.
If the LP remains open, the Lepton NFT earning can also be an added incentives.

1 Like

From my understanding opening an ionx/eth LP pool on GYSR would encourage more liquidity on uniswap.

Does the Lepton provide liquidity to a dex in some way? It seems like it would increase ionx distribution to those staking their lepton in an nft.

If the ionx/eth pools aren’t renewed on GYSR are there plans to increase liquidity on a dex or a cex?