POOL pool Jackpots

ah, I misunderstood. However, if the POOL pool becomes the place to deposit would this cause TVL in stabelcoin pools to decrease? which would then in turn decrease the size of the prize for this jackpot?

in terms of reserve rate i only wanted to slash the USDC pool and leave the others as is. My reasoning is that it will help make the USDC pool the most attractive pool to deposit in.

1 Like

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:

  1. Boil it down to the essence of the change from the existing system
  2. 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
1 Like

Actually what I want is to target both simultaneously. If a new pool were created I’d want it to be one single pool targeting both membership and deposit size, no need for users to choose between the two. One single POOL pool where all the fun happens no matter your wallet size, without any harm to the whales who fund our prizes.

As of now 62MM of the 78MM in the USDC Pool is held by the top 20 depositors. Even with massive pods the odds will still heavily in the whales favour. We need to find a way to throw some bones to the little guys otherwise we are not a platform that is going to make positive change to the world. Just a system where the little guy foregoes his interest to give it to the whales at the top who are making bank collecting their prize and dumping. The key to my approach is both whales and fish having fun in the pool and I think the community wants this and sees value in it. The buyback of POOL would be a great way to do the per ticket portion of the prize but I think we can’t discount the per wallet portion. Not putting large prizes in the hands of little fish will be our biggest mistake and I don’t think marketing a few lucky winners and Pods users getting a fraction of a win is going to solve that.

This is not guesswork it is sound tokenomics. Whales and fish feeding together. What would we need to do to overcome these technical hurdles? There must be a technically feasible way to make the per wallet portion work.

I actually think the opposite would happen, big growth in POOL token demand would increase the price of POOL and therefore make the stablecoin pools more attractive to farm with higher APY.

I think farming is a bigger factor than prize size in the appeal of the stablecoin pools. There is tons of DAI and USDC in the world to be added but the tickets to the POOL pool will sell out fast if we make it our primary prize winning pool as there are a limited supply.

I believe that any strategy which a certain amount is distributed proportionally to the number of POOLs a wallet holds (eg: If there is an amount of 1000 to be divided to 10000 POOLs circulating, so each POOL should received 0.1 from this amount. Exactly like dividends…) would bring more interest in acquiring POOLs. I don’t know if it is possible, but maybe retaining some prize from all the POOLs, every POOL would pass 1% to all POOL holders. I know that at the beginning the value would be very low because the prizes are not that big, and also 1% is just an example, but the value I suggest is low because we can not retain to much prize from anothers POOLs as it could impact negatively how many people would be interested in playing… Another thing with this strategy is that people could “measure” the value of a POOL once they could have a way to measure the returns when buying a POOL.

Just to be clear, I’m in favor of distributing the amount proportionally and not as a prize to only one person. Also, I agree with your counter-proposal of a buyback program, I just wanted to add the way how the “collected” amount should be divided.

What’s involved exactly from a technical level at instituting a POOL buyback? Would it do it from uniswap v2?

1 Like

What’s involved exactly from a technical level at instituting a POOL buyback? Would it do it from uniswap v2?

Uniswap has the most liquidity, so it makes sense to buy it through them. It’s possible for governance to call Uniswap directly for a purchase, although going through a proposal would be very slow. We’d just need a contract that can buy tokens for governance. Ideally slowly; like a reverse faucet.

1 Like

Rough estimate based on current prices and deposits if we used half of the 50% reserve(25% of total interest accrued) to buyback POOL it would be about 3000 POOL per week. Of course there is the risk of the winner dumping it each week and we could also look at splitting it between increased drip/increased prize/return some to treasury. $70,000 per week prize in the POOL pool would also be pretty exciting. I still have the concern of the prize just going to whales who dump though, and because of that I might be inclined to retain some of that POOL until we have a solution to get more small fish winning or focus it on increased drip.

I still have the concern of the prize just going to whales who dump though, and because of that I might be inclined to retain some of that POOL until we have a solution to get more small fish winning or focus it on increased drip.

Agreed! I think it makes sense to drip it out to the POOL Pool holders. Then everyone benefits. It’s very similar to the SushiBar, where profits are shared with Sushi holders.


I think a good compromise to increase POOL utility without too much technical difficulty would be:

  • Dedicate half of the 50% reserve rate(25% of total accrued interest) to POOL buyback.
  • Increase POOL pool prize to 1000 POOL
  • Increase POOL pool drip to 250/day

That would even leave some POOL coming back to treasury and we could re-asses and adjust the numbers down the road. This is not exactly what I had in mind going into this but I think it would be a fun thing to try and a good alternative to slashing reserve rates. I think this would also be well timed with our recent reduction in distribution.

This still leaves the one major and important issue unsolved and we should put some serious focus into brainstorming ideas to get some big prizes to small to medium holders. If we can’t come up with any new ideas I would propose we add a POOL pool V2 on our roadmap that could include some prizes based on per wallet and maybe some other new functions. Even if that is 6 months to 1 year down the road.

1 Like