I am going to have to disagree with increasing the POOl pool distribution. I think that approx 10% APY is sufficient for essentially staking tokens. there is nowhere else to earn yield on POOL alone. it is the only game in town. If we raise those rates then the LP rewards will need to be even higher. in my opinion, the LP rewards should be significantly higher than the POOL pool rewards (essentially you are a single-sided liquidity provider in the POOL pool). this is how other protocols that allow you to stake operate, and for good reason. we have heard from more than one whale that cannot invest as much as they would like into POOl because of lack of liquidity.
i am thinking that 400 pool should not be related to LP rewards at all. it should be something outside of this proposal entirely.
I agree that 10% APY(8.11% currently) is sufficient, but that APY will drop as more join the pool. If we want to draw more people in quickly and try to compensate for the reduction we should do these at the same time. Best to come out the gate with higher APY on the POOL pool and let it settle.
to be honest, I hope that we do not get more depositors in the POOL pool. I think it should be more enticing to be an LP. having more LP’s benefits us more than having more people in the POOL pool. yes, the POOL pool provides a place to stash tokens instead of selling them, but if people cannot buy the amount they want on the market then we are actually suppressing the price.
That’s a good point, would be good to see more locked up in both IMO. Agree that LP incentives is a bigger priority though.
I’d like us to figure out a top down approach for the budget once this 14 week period ends. By top down I mean, figure out what the yearly inflation of POOL will be and then work through where the funds need to be allocated. I don’t like this idea of taking everything in isolation and just pulling more POOL out of the treasury as needed. I do think these things should be connected; if we need to allocate funds to the swim meet function or to incentivise AMM participation then that should impact the pool distributions in the lottery. I guess for unforeseen things they can go to new proposals, but if things we already know need funding lets make a global plan for this.
My simplistic POV is that the core KPI the POOL distribution should be optimizing for is TVL.
I think it’s important to acknowledge that depositors right now are likely depositing into the major pools for the POOL distribution, not the other prizes. Right now POOL is the “prize” driving growth, and everyone is winning. This is not sustainable given the POOL distributions will end at some point.
So my approach would be two-pronged:
- raise the reserve rate to something far higher that 5% – something closer to 50%. Build up a real treasury this way that can double as a pool sponsorship fund for a long time (e.g. keep TVL high)
- Keep the distributions on the USDC / DAI pools as high as possible. Personally I think the non-stablecoin pools are a distraction – those coins are so volatile that the pools can hardly be called “lossless” (as everything is still priced in USD)
Again, it’s important to acknowledge that the power users are farming right now, and they will seek more capital efficient stores once the protocol incentives dither. So my opinion is we should be building up stablecoin reserves to keep TVL as high as possible for as long as possible.
RE: LP incentives. I continue to believe there is a huge gap in liquidity that the USDC / DAI pools have demonstrated can be overcome with sufficient POOL distributions. I don’t think a discounted sale to private (i.e. non-governed) parties at this point aligns with the decentralized spirit of the project. Sorry for mixing up two threads but these topics are all related
PTIP-5 raised reserve rate to 50%. this is already in effect.
I believe the reduction in POOL distribution to the main pools will not be big enough to deter whale depositors. the rates will still be attractive compared to other yield sources in defi. they also will have to factor in the expected value of the prizes. The whales win quite often and this increases their overall return.
i am a strong advocate for increasing the LP rewards. i think the entire community is as well. we will come up with a strategy very soon to reward LP’s.
this is already in effect.
I can’t believe I missed that. Please excuse my ignorance.
Going to keep banging the drum on this: I’d move ~80% of the rewards to sponsor pools that contribute to the prize but aren’t eligible to win. This will help reduce the likelihood of whales winning prizes and I would expect the effective APY btw the sponsor and main pools to equilibrate quickly.
Overall, I’d also strongly recommend not incentivizing multiple USD pools. I know the team has spent a lot of time in the past thinking through pros/cons and architecture for doing pools that have the Curve 3Pool or something similar as the yield source. I’d recommend putting that up for the community to discuss. Concentrating into a single USD pool will lead to MUCH larger headline prizes and easier messaging for non-cryptonatives.
That feels like too drastic a change to the main pools. If someone is forced to withdraw and deposit into a different contract that would be quite a bit in gas fees. Also once the money comes out of the pool there’s no guarantee it goes back in the other contract. They may decide to go elsewhere at that point.
For the change to the incentives shifting to sponsored pools, the type of users we’re trying to get to move to a separate pool don’t care about gas fees and tend to follow incentives.
If you’re talking about moving to a combined USD pool, yeah, there will definitely be pain around that. I think the DAO could consider reimbursing fees to users who use a Zap or something similar to move to the new pool.
I completely agree about moving the POOL rewards to sponsorship, either partially or fully. I made another forum post about having the POOL rewards directed towards sponsorship. Apply drip to sponsorship contract only for WBTC and USDT - #4 by ageless
I will also bang the drum again. I have been voicing this for the last 2 months. Please seriously consider moving the drip reward either partially or fully to sponsorship in the architecture. It is a game changer and I can’t believe more people aren’t pushing for this.
I like this idea as well. I’m mostly just worried about the complexity around implementing. Specifically at the UI level. The smart contracts would be simple. But it would create two different methods of depositing and would need a decent amount of re-working.
Temperature check on POOL distribution.
please visit the link Here to see the current distribution proposal.
POOL Pool Distribution/Day
- 100(No Change)
- Something Else
gUSD/bUSD/sUSD Distribution/Day per pool
- 100 each
- 50 each
- something else
USDT Sponsorship Drip(should POOL drip to Sponsorship instead of to the regular despositors)
- Yes, 80% to Sponsorship 20% to regular pool
- Yes 100% to sponsorship
- NO, all POOl to regular prize pool
Uniswap LP Token Distribution/Day
- Something Else
Is perfect i love pool
Can you please explain what happens by moving drip rewards to sponsorship?
What does sponsorship look like in PoolTogether? Sorry if my questions are naive.
if you move the drip to sponsorship then the farming whales will move their funds there. funds deposited in sponsorship are not part of the prize drawing(they are not eligible to win the prize). the funds deposited into sponsorship do however contribute interest to the prize. therefore, theoretically, the size of the prize would remain the same, but the small fish would have a much better chance to win.
I will be grateful if someone helps me with a consultation, and my apologies for doing it in a group that very possibly does not correspond, but I have not found another place to do it.
It happens that I enter pooltogether with metamask in order to buy a ticket and I transferred to this address.
The point is that I don’t know if I provide liquidity to a pool or I am participating in a lottery. I don’t know what situation the transfer was in or if it was lost.
Well, any data or page where to find information will be very useful to me.
Sadly it looks like you transferred your Dai to the Dai contract itself (which is not related to PoolTogether at all). So in that case, those funds are lost.
I understand, I appreciate your time to send me this information.