Current vote 
Accept 50,295 (70%)
Reject 21,713 (30%)
I’m definitely not anti-whale! I love the whales… it’s more just an issue when the whales are also winning the prizes too. I think that’s the main problem.
Btw, the current vote only passes if 100,000 Votes are cast for it which I think is impossible for that to happen.
1 Like
Thanks @Torgin ! These polls are great. Would love to see a poll first before most votes!
2 Likes
Don’t want to throw us off course too much here but as another idea what if we were to do a target based approach for a certain period of time that encourages growth.
As an example:
DAI pool could start at 500/day but if we reach a new milestone like 200M TVL we boost it to 750/day then at 300M another boost to 1000 per day. It would help maintain a high APY while preventing whales from sucking everything up right now.
A new governance run pool could start at 50 POOL per day and allocation could grow at several milestones.
Price growth will also help with the APY. Token minting should be the strongest in the early stages and this could encourage growth without giving away the farm. The number I selected were random and only intended as an example. This could also decrease negative sentiment as users don’t watch there APY shrinking so much.
Edit:
Would be even better to do smaller intervals. Also, just realized my numbers weren’t reflecting where we are on an individual pool( was looking at total on the whole platform)
DAI pool:
500/day to start, 600/day 50M, 700/ day 75M, 800/day 100M
1 Like
I do not think slowing down the distribution on the USDC and DAI pools is a good idea. If we want to test whether the reward levels affect liquidity, I’d recommend increasing the rewards by a small amount for 1-2 weeks. Lowering rewards far below the initial level is going to hurt perceptions of the protocol and I expect to see a big drop in deposits and thus rewards.
PoolTogether has been promising from Day 1, but has also struggled to increase deposits at anything near the rate of other protocols. Now that we finally have gotten it up to the $100M level, taking action that is likely to reduce it seems like shooting ourselves in the foot.
3 Likes
I definitely think we need to take into account what we want to target as the prize pool size. This is also related to the good analysis @Torgin did on effective APRs for COMP and UNI and how those compare to other options. However, I think what we may want to optimize for is what the effective APR will be at the target pool size we desire.
I’m going to work on a write up trying to combine some of this work with a plan to get the protocol up to $1 billion in locked value.
1 Like
If future pool growth is taken into account, we should take future changes in POOL price into account. The problem with that is noone knows where the price will go. That’s why I did my analysis at current pool size and current POOL price. One way to model it would be to see growth in price with increased AuM. That would help keep APRs stable, but may be too optimistic.
2 Likes
Agreed. I know we are avoiding speculation but to build out models we will have to have an assumed price. Probably makes the most sense to just have that as a variable.