To clarify, I definitely am not interested in limiting people’s deposits. The minimum number to be eligible for the prize was more of a sybil resistance to make it less worthwhile to create multiple wallets. There would be no cap and users would be competing for both prizes one of which is based on per ticket which still encourages large deposits.
I understood this, but reframed your ask in order to:
- Boil it down to the essence of the change from the existing system
- Reframe the idea in a way that is technically feasible
The essence of the change is: you want a prize strategy that selects winners based on membership, not deposit size. Restrictions on deposit size are just a detail.
It’s not feasible to bolt it onto existing pools, so it would have to be a brand new pool. Since we don’t want to force the existing POOL Pool users to migrate their liquidity it would have to be a new pool. To mitigate the degree of change across the entire tech stack, that pool would simply be for the membership prizes.
The buy pressure would come from the combination of larger depositors hoping to win the per ticket prize and smaller depositors who now no longer feel like they won’t bother joining because their chances are so low.
This is just a hypothesis. The fact is a very large percentage of people who hold POOL are already in the POOL Pool, regardless of deposit sizes. It’s the best place to put POOL, so people put it there. I don’t think all of a sudden people are going to rush out to buy POOL because the prize is bigger.
The point is, this is significant change and effort for what amounts to guesswork.
Instead of guessing let’s:
- straight-up buy POOL tokens using the reserve. Direct buy pressure.
- evolve Pods so that more people win