Thanks for reading muh long post and giving the thorough response.
It's very apparent that we still have much to discuss.
There are a lot of rabbit holes here.
I still think we should do a Space so I'm talking WITH you instead of AT you.

Some of the things you mention were never a risk for zing, i.e. it going to 0 and people losing "everything", this was never an option in my book.

I agree and this is why I was so willing to keep buying the bottom over and over again.
Regardless the risk of systemic failure is always higher than zero.
It's basically the same outcome if the token price falls 75%

The real point being made is that my Hive is at risk and my Hive gets ZERO percent of the upside if the gamble succeeds. It doesn't make logical sense to put my Hive at risk if there is huge risk with a paltry reward. This is why it's just smarter to not be in the LP on a financial level.

• If you guys keep trying to price fix based on APRs you're going to have a bad time.
• Price fixing is terrible economic policy but the reasons why are very complicated.
• It would be much easier if you just agreed that price fixing is bad so I can explain in more detail that what is being done here is indeed price fixing.

LP's also receive .25% fee on every swap

For a new project like this the trading fee is a rounding error and totally irrelevant. It only works with stable pairings with large amounts of volume. Microcap tokens don't get any benefit in this regard. The volatility of the pairing x1000 times more risky than the paltry quarter percent kickback.

that would've gotten us a lot more liquidity potentially which could've kept the price more stable during big trades.

Again, Zing does not need any more liquidity >> it needs a higher market cap. It is the massive allocations to the delegators that financially incentivizes a lower cap. You can't get more liquidity on some other random chain where you have no reputation. You need to be realistic with how much ZING should be for sale on the market. Not dollars. Zing. As far as I can tell this LP is the only lifeline.

On the other side of the coin we also have changes to delegations and staking which were upped to make up for the difference in APR which mainly happened due to the lack of liquidity on the LP.

Again APR is determined by the free market and you cannot price-fix it. You were supposed to let these positions bleed lower than Hive APR rather than artificially propping them up when people complained.

We have almost 90% of all zing staked currently so we'll be assessing further changes

I have no idea what you're implying here (less or more yield for stakers) but I can tell you that my ultimate recommendation:

1. Remove all APR from staking.
   Having 90% of the tokens staked is worthless.
   It makes the market sluggish and lowers liquidity and volume.
   It does not help prop up the price as many assume.
   If anything I would recommend allocating ALL of that yield to the LP.
   Keep in mind that I have 3.3M Zing staked right now, and this is my advice.

2. Stop trying to price fix APR.
   Measuring by APR is not appropriate in a free-market economy, and in my opinion the LP needs to have like a 50% APR for it to be truly worth the financial risks of staking. It is true that many will ape into the LP anyway because they're apes, but that is not the financial incentive.

3. Let's set up a Spaces talk.
   Both CUB and PolyCUB systemically failed because Khal refused to listen to the advice I was giving him. This is a super complicated and nuanced topic. Zing is going to be just fine because it's launching inside of potentially one of the most epic bull market years ever... but sustainability is going to be a huge issue in 2026. I truly feel that it is important that we discuss this further in a public forum where we aren't just talking at each other with these long sweeping comments.