Future roadmap idea for IQ ATP

Governance Proposals
1

Dear readers,

Currently we have ATP, which is hopeful and developing, yet still fragile.

Recent discussions have focused on preventing rug pulls by locking liquidity. While this could help ATP mature, it also introduces new challenges.

One of those challenges is the volatility of the IQ token, which can affect not only token prices on ATP but also the depth of liquidity available during downward market moves.

Proposal:

My idea is to keep IQ as the entry token for the ATP platform. Users would purchase ATP tokens with IQ, after which the platform would swap those IQ tokens into FraxUSD for the liquidity pool. This generates trading volume for IQ and opens a new adoption channel for Frax.

In addition, IQ can benefit through a deflationary mechanism. Suppose the initial cost to launch an AI agent is the equivalent of 25K FraxUSD. This would be paid in IQ tokens. Since the liquidity portion cannot be retrieved, those IQ tokens would be burned instead of sold, while the actual liquidity would be provided in FraxUSD (or sFraxUSD) by the Frax/BrainDAO team.

This structure ensures sustainability for ATP, directs capital from IQ into ATP, and creates lasting value. IQ benefits through consistent deflationary action, while investors would be paid out in IQ rather than FraxUSD upon exit — reinforcing IQ’s role as the ecosystem’s gateway token.

Potential points of interest:

  • Reducing slippage to an absolute minimum in cooperation with the Frax team

  • Creating a positive flywheel by enabling more agents to go live

  • Eliminating death spirals during market downturns through stable backing

  • Scalable liquidity that grows with adoption

  • Flexibility: burning only initial liquidity or all liquidity depending on community consensus

  • Please note this proposal is exhaustive; only constructive criticism is welcome

2

First of all, I found this content very interesting.

The liquidity supply of the existing AI agent-$IQ pair will gain rapid synergy effects and accelerate growth in line with the growth and price increases of the AI agent and $IQ.

However, as you mentioned, the price volatility of $IQ is high, and there is a possibility of a death spiral along with the overall market downturn, making it unstable.

To address this, providing liquidity with FraxUSD, which serves as a stable backing for AI agents, could certainly achieve the desired stable and sustainable platform growth effects.

I believe there will be no major issues since $IQ’s position as a trading pair in ATP is guaranteed, and $IQ will continue to play its role even when transactions occur in the liquidity pool.

Additionally, the $IQ liquidity generated when launching AI agents to the graduation stage could be fully burned instead of swapped, which seems like a viable option. This approach could accelerate burning more effectively than relying solely on the current structure, where burning occurs through ATP transaction fees.

However, there are several additional considerations compared to the previous structure: the additional swap transactions that generate fees, ensuring smooth liquidity for $IQ and FraxUSD when they are supplied to the liquidity pool, the weakened direct influence of $IQ on the ATP platform, and supply issues for the AI agent-$IQ pair in the BAMM pool, which is a unique feature of ATP.

Additionally, this stable structure could be a way for us, as a late entrant, to differentiate ourselves from Virtuals Protocol.

In any case, I am not sure if this is technically feasible, but since it involves changing the overall structure of ATP, I believe the BrainDAO team, which has more specialized knowledge, will discuss this issue.

Thank you for your feedback. I read it all the way through.

3

This proposal has some interesting points and potential benefits, but also a few issues that we should be clear about.

The fee for creating agents is already stored in a contract, and there is a mechanism in place for the community to vote on whether it should be burned. That was part of the design from the beginning and we can execute it once we have more agents created.

I also don’t see why BrainDAO should be expected to provide liquidity for every agent. We already have a ten million dollar funding program for agents and the goal is to deploy it into projects that are backed by strong teams. We have already closed with groups like ProtonTerminal. Putting treasury funds into projects that are not solid or have no team behind them would just waste money, and that risk is already covered through our funding initiative.

Moving agents into fxsUSD pools would also require redeploying contracts and paying for another audit. That is expensive and takes time.

At the end of the day, the reason this discussion is happening is because IQ is not performing the way we want. This proposal will not solve that. It may stabilize the price of agents, but what we really need is to focus on making IQ perform well. If the team puts resources into this strategy, we may end up with the same price for IQ and only a more stable price for agents. That does not move us closer to our goal.

Please keep bringing ideas! I love to discuss them, happy that we have holders that are bringing ideas to change current situation

3 Likes
4

Open to the idea of frxUSD pairs but having a $25k fee to launch an agent will prevent teams from launching agents.

You can currently launch agent for less than $10 it will launch first with the bonding curve so people can at least trade the agent and gain momentum before it reaches $25k in liquidity before graduating.

As an agent creator it makes sense to launch with a small amount of capital ands start building a community of holders who can push it towards graduation before you as the creator have to make a major investment.

And also agree that having BrainDAO provide liquidity for every agent is not feasible if we want the platform to scale.

1 Like
5

The reason I thought was, yes there’s funds for ATP, and this would create a burning mechanism while at the same time creating a stabilised liquidity pool, which would make for a more diverse eco system, now it’s an all out IQ token eco system a token which already is volatile, and due to high inflation shrinking in value to the dollar gradually, not saying this cannot change at some point, but I think it requires a decent amount of inflation reduction for it ever to gain traction.

Now asking from the creators to lock their liquidity, might work in some business models, but it’s also asking them to take on all the inflation and volatility. Locking liquidity technically gains more trust, at the same time, the liquidity could lose value over night, it makes me think. Have the AI agents been stress tested for such a case where, token price is high, maybe 10-20x from launch liquidity has shrunk, and people want to cash out, what would happen then.

now I didn’t really have to consider liquidity as a factor as a creator, thought it would be solved upon graduation by itself. So forgive me for my ignorance.

as for @NavinNavin. What I ment was more a certain set price of graduation in dollars vs a set amount of IQ tokens, yes a lower IQ price could technically make it cheaper to graduate an AI Agent, but is that what we want people to wait for.

For bigger more professional projects this whole thing might not be much of an issue, it could be something that would benefit maturing the platform as a whole, sure.

But maybe starter would like to look for a lower entry with smaller commitments.

Even though yes with all the HiIQ rewards, I could technically bring an offer of 7M IQ into the liquidity pool, but as I’ve mentioned into DM’s with Navin. It does come with certain concerns for me and fellow early backers, so this proposal came as a total shock.

Other than that, people I know are still interested in investing into IQ, but mainly the HiiQ staking version, due to the high amount of rewards, and occasional price spikes it’s very interesting for them, so there is still major interest in IQ in this niche area in my area of people I talk to.

Yes ATP could outshine HiiQ with the right measures, but locking in what’s right now 25K where off the value is not stable is a big no no, vs. Having that 25K yielding in the HiiQ pool, unless you have a great business model and an amazing AI format.

I think HiiQ will become less dominant over time, and that’s what I’ve been trying to do, by reducing inflation proposals, and bring new tokens an investors to ATP, and a I was surprised when I heard people would want to invest into IQ vault. People who just didn’t have a clue how to get to that platform without personal guidance. But as IQ vault was rising, aiming to become number one on the platform. Anti rug pull measures came up. And putting all your funds into a token, for days and potentially months ahead. This also feels like a distrust towards creators. And any AI creator who brings value isn’t looking to rug pull their community, that’s why I think a permanent lock is quite inappropriate if it’s not voluntary.

And as I’ve mentioned previously to Navin, in Dm, it doesn’t seem fair to have early small backers, come up with the liquidity just for it to be bought up quickly by investors on launch hour. Or am I missing something here?

6

I’d like to add, I had some people who wanted to invest 1000-2000 dollars in IQ into IQ vault, maybe not a lot of money in the West but in Asia that isn’t always the case, so with upcoming locked liquidity in my case I thought how am I going to explain to them their liquidity will be locked forever.

7

The case being considered seems to assume an individual launching a single AI agent, but that’s not how ATP was designed. ATP is meant to fundraise for proper teams with solid products behind them, not one-off individual experiments. It’s fundamentally different from something like depositing $25k in HiIQ to earn a 65% APR.

The $25k initial target for marking an agent as “alive” isn’t about yield—it’s a safeguard. It signals to holders that the project has real commitment, solid backers, and a stake in the game. It prevents low-effort projects or scams from getting listed on the front page without a real team or backing.

On this point, we’re aligned. BrainDAO can selectively back some of these projects when the team and tech are strong. For example, we supported Astral with initial funding via twamm, and we have an ongoing plan with Proton Terminal. We are receiving other teams that want to deploy on ATP and get funding using our ADK.

8

It’s more clear to me now, the idea is mainly to attract big AI projects, teams and builders.

Then, I think there’s no need to lower entry for individuals as the platform keeps growing.

9

People do not trust creators purely. In 2017, many people revealed their identities and conducted ICOs, but they turned out to be scams.

In the case of Virtuals Protocols, even though there is clear information about the team, there have been cases of soft rug pulls. Despite this, there are basic safeguards in place, and no one seems to be concerned about it.

Systemically, even though ATP is designed to prevent creators from arbitrarily tampering with liquidity, attempts to do so may arise for various reasons. Leaving room for creators to attempt to arbitrarily withdraw liquidity is not advisable. Frankly, I don’t understand why there is any interest in intervening in liquidity, whether it’s after graduation or before. The same applies to other platforms.

Liquidity will fluctuate based on AI agents and $IQ prices, and even if liquidity were to collapse, creators cannot arbitrarily grant disposal rights tied to their own interests.

1 Like
10

Well I tried making a vote as you requested however that is no longer possible for non BrainDAO members.

Locking liquidity, limiting proposals.

With the bullish news of iKRW. I thought to myself ah it’s fine let’s get that liquidity locking proposal finalised so we can move on. But we have to be weary of stopping people who want to contribute at the gate.