CIP-78: Dissolve Sprinter Bonding Pool

Governance
,
1

Simple summary

Sprinter is temporarily discontinuing solver operations in CoW Protocol and therefore proposes to dissolve the respective solver bonding pool.

Details

The current bond safe was created by: 0xCa99e3Fc7B51167eaC363a3Af8C9A185852D1622 and has the following address: 0xe78d5F3aba2B31C980bF5E35E05B3A55b8365b48.

USDC funds were deposited by 0x6BAD23112a9495babea74544400662d4EfBe23b3.

COW funds were deposited by 0x39D787fdf7384597C7208644dBb6FDa1CcA4eBdf.

The solver addresses vouched for by the above pool are:

0xbab555babee5d867983902bc8db8f707157245be

0xbada5552a3e5e2fb57db982e29257821a2cf192d

The CIP proposes that the bonding pool is dissolved and the funds are sen to the addresses listed below.

Proposal

We propose to dissolve the bonding pool and return the funds via the following steps:

  1. CoW Core Team to denylist the Project Blanc/ Sprinter solver addresses

  2. Sprinter / Project Blanc to unvouch solver addresses (Done)

    Ethereum Transaction Hash: 0x3269b15814… | Etherscan

  3. Move CIP to Voting. CIP pass to execute following two transfers:

Transfer 500,000 USDC on mainnet from 0xe78d5F3aba2B31C980bF5E35E05B3A55b8365b48 to 0x6BAD23112a9495babea74544400662d4EfBe23b3

Transfer 1.5 M COW on mainnet from 0xe78d5F3aba2B31C980bF5E35E05B3A55b8365b48 to 0x39D787fdf7384597C7208644dBb6FDa1CcA4eBdf

If the CIP passes, then the transfer of funds from the bonding pool to the relevant addresses will be automatically executed within 48 hours of the CIP passing.

Safe Transaction Data

{
  "version": "1.0",
  "chainId": "1",
  "createdAt": 1763049800354,
  "meta": {
    "name": "Transactions Batch",
    "description": "",
    "txBuilderVersion": "1.18.2",
    "createdFromSafeAddress": "0xe78d5F3aba2B31C980bF5E35E05B3A55b8365b48",
    "createdFromOwnerAddress": "",
    "checksum": "0x66a532f129684a34ad6bf160ec895d85c1c5b7dae1f1ab0253e79757ab7c9fcc"
  },
  "transactions": [
    {
      "to": "0xDEf1CA1fb7FBcDC777520aa7f396b4E015F497aB",
      "value": "0",
      "data": null,
      "contractMethod": {
        "inputs": [
          {
            "internalType": "address",
            "name": "recipient",
            "type": "address"
          },
          {
            "internalType": "uint256",
            "name": "amount",
            "type": "uint256"
          }
        ],
        "name": "transfer",
        "payable": false
      },
      "contractInputsValues": {
        "recipient": "0x39D787fdf7384597C7208644dBb6FDa1CcA4eBdf",
        "amount": "1500000000000000000000000"
      }
    },
    {
      "to": "0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48",
      "value": "0",
      "data": null,
      "contractMethod": {
        "inputs": [
          {
            "name": "to",
            "type": "address",
            "internalType": "address"
          },
          {
            "name": "value",
            "type": "uint256",
            "internalType": "uint256"
          }
        ],
        "name": "transfer",
        "payable": false
      },
      "contractInputsValues": {
        "to": "0x6BAD23112a9495babea74544400662d4EfBe23b3",
        "value": "500000000000"
      }
    }
  ]
}
1 Like
2

I searched for information on official sources, but I didn’t see a reason for leaving.
If you could share it, it would be helpful for everyone.

3

The main reason for us leaving is the (lack of) profitability of our CoW solver operation. As we have highlighted and discussed with you and CoW Core team members in the context of our blog article series [1] and talks [2] on the topic, solvers working with public liquidity sources have an inherent disadvantage and are unable to compete with solvers with access to market maker type private liquidity.

We unfortunately did not have the impression that the issues we brought up are being acknowledged and there is willingness to address the issues. Therefore we did decide to step back from solving in CoW.

[1] Building Economic Trust in Solver-Based Networks – Part 2: The State of Competition
[2] Rethinking Competition Models in Solver-Based Protocols | ETHBerlin

4

I voted FOR.

Thanks for the clarification from the project – I read these articles before and had my suspicions that the issue might be profit. I’ll read the articles again to understand what you think is the problem with solver competition.
It’s unfortunate that CoW is losing one of its solvers, which is reducing the level of competition.

Cp0x: Introduction as Delegate