Something else to keep in mind is the intrinsic relationship between liquidity and APR.
For example, let’s imagine that if we reduced the rewards by 50%, 50% of the liquidity would indeed get removed. If this were to happen, the APR would actually not change because half the amount of FOX would be rewarded to half the amount of liquidity, which would in turn incentivize more liquidity. Perhaps more realistic is that we’d see a 25% reduction in liquidity which would result in a 25% reduction in APR, but I estimate the reduction in liquidity will be even lower than this. Ideally, the decrease in liquidity mining rewards will be offset by strong DAO traction/performance and a corresponding increase in interest in the project, and liquidity & volume will grow despite a reduction in rewards.
Good points, yes. I just think we should do something a bit less drastic this time around so we can get another data point to improve the next round’s forecasting.
Good news! Chatted with and they are stepping up to take ownership of getting the community aligned on an LM proposal and taking it through the governance process
I will stay involved until the end, but please direct any questions or feedback on this proposal to going forward.
My suggestion is to reduce by 25%, yes, but I could certainly accept a slightly faster tapering off. Splitting the difference is 45% so maybe that’s where we could start, but I think I’d feel better with 33% to start with. Another compromise would be to lower the duration even further (maybe 3-4 months) so we can re-evaluate sooner if we determine the taper was too slow/fast.
Awesome, I am open here and think we’re getting closer. Looking forward to seeing what everyone thinks in the poll results.
Yea I like the idea of a 6 month timeframe for two reasons, it allows the rewards to stay a little higher without using a larger chunk of the treasury and it provides for a sooner opportunity to re-evaluate if conditions change (v3, price changes, liquidity changes, new tech, etc).
However, at the same time it gives LPs some security for 6 months, and that’s an entirety in crypto so LPs will love it.
Agreed, and also curious to see what everyone else thinks in the poll.
thanks so much ! excited to see you push this forward 1f680
Excited to hear is taking ownership of moving this important governance item forward!
The more I think about it, the more I am sympathetic to 's points and I would support a significantly higher LM rewards for this next program.
I think something like a 25-33% reduction in rewards make more sense than my original idea of a 67% reduction in rewards after additional thought on this.
I am still personally for 9 months of rewards instead of 6, but some fair points were made on that front too and its not a dealbreaker for me. If the community decides it would be better to only extend for 6 months for now I would be okay with that, but otherwise my default position is 9 months gives everyone the security of knowing the DAO will have sufficient liquidity for at least the 1st year of it’s life.
I look forward to see the proposed revisions makes to the current ideation post in boardroom.
Thanks, I appreciate the handoff and the vote of confidence. Happy to run point in this discussion and see it through to the Proposal phase. We will keep all facets discussed so far under consideration, but for now we’re only going to move forward with the Uniswap v2 component of the discussion (holding the Bancor/Sushi/etc… components for individual votes at a later date).
This should allow the proposal to be considered more readily by most participants, and it will help to ensure we have the next set of rewards locked down before the current set ends (it would be very detrimental to have a complete lapse of rewards).
To move forward on the rewards proposal we need to decide on rewards (as a percentage of current rewards) and duration. Please find polls below:
Thanks, I appreciate the handoff and the vote of confidence. Happy to run point in this discussion and see it through to the Proposal phase. We will keep all facets discussed so far under consideration, but for now we’re only going to move forward with the Uniswap v2 component of the discussion (holding the Bancor/Sushi/etc… components for individual votes at a later date).
This should allow the proposal to be considered more readily by most participants, and it will help to ensure we have the next set of rewards locked down before the current set ends (it would be very detrimental to have a complete lapse of rewards).
To move forward on the rewards proposal we need to decide on rewards (as a percentage of current rewards) and duration. Please find polls below:
How much should current rewards be reduced by for the next round of LP rewards? (Pick up to 2)
How long should Uniswap v2 rewards be extended for after October? (Pick 1)
Note: A new discussion and proposal will be introduced before the expiration of this extension.
Quick comment for and all leaders who step up to lead projects or workstreams, etc.
Doing polls is great and can be a valuable datapoint. However, don’t get trapped into thinking you need to follow the crowd’s voted preference.
Gather the information you want, and then make a decision.
The DAO is an economically-weighted democracy at the on-chain treasury voting level, but at the project and workstream level, specific individuals need to lead and use their discretion and judgement. Art and innovation are often destroyed by popular consensus.
