Hey, using a comment I wrote on the Discord mostly but think it’s good to have it here as well.
I think the details are currently not shown totally correct, the last comment says „I don‘t see any drawbacks“. The reason that the LP was deployed in ranges and the way they are is that we get much deeper liquidity that way in LP range than we would get from a infinite range. Infinite ranges are not very efficient.
I appreciate the work the TWG did when deploying the ranges and think it was the right decision to choose ranges instead of using a single 0 to infinity LP.
Saying only 1 position out of 6 are in range does not show the full picture imo, the ranges are not all made equal or fullfill the same function, this here is part 3 of the POL Analysis back then Part 3: POL considerations and next steps
We got a TWAP protection range, Concentrated in-range position and Out-of-range diversification position (100% POOL above a certain price to a high price).
(I wasn‘t active on the TWG or the report, just looking at it as an outsider)
I‘m not a liquidity expert and if people would prefer a single full range LP, that‘s fine.
At the end, it‘s a matter of preference though, I just think that the discussion is not presenting the situation correctly partially, it‘s not that we generally got bad liquidity, it just is not equally up and down, we got few liquidity down and lots of liquidity up. We could even the liquidity again by providing more down liquidity or by removing up liquidity, I‘m not totally sure if I would prefer deploying more ETH to support the price down.
Saying a full range position is price agnostic also depends on how you see it imo, if we deploy more liquidity on the current price, we support the current price up and down and kind of say that the current price is correct and worth supporting, we could have deployed a full range LP when POOL was at 10$ and would be now also in a bad spot.
I don’t have a strong opinion about the topic and would be fine with a full range LP, just wanna provide some other viewpoints here.