Thanks for the write-up @Leighton!
I would probably be in favor of scrapping USDT drip and double the USDC one, but that’s partially because I’m not a fan of USDT. The current deposit APY of USDT is 3.05% [1] vs 2.92% for USDC [2], which seems a very small difference. Granted, the deposit APY for USDT does fluctuate a lot, so a USDT prize would likely be higher over time. If we attract a similar amount deposits as on Ethereum, we’d likely influence the size of the smallish USDT market and the APY could drop below USDC (if the usage of USDT on Polygon does not increase). If we want to really grow on Polygon, I think the smarter move is to go all-in on USDC since that seems to be much more widely used.
@Hook and @tt_1 Note that dripping to sponsorship would technically not be a test-run as we already did that on the Polygon USDT pool (albeit with MATIC). A great analysis of the results was performed by @underthesea [3]. It shows data supporting the thesis that whales go for the yield in sponsorship and small players go for the prizes. Furthermore, I interpret those results as a big advantage for smaller players to win. Given that Polygon caters to small players and we want small players to win more often, I’d say it is a no-brainer to implement at least a 20/80 APY/sponsorship split.
[1] Aavescan USDT
[2] Aavescan USDC
[3] Sponsorship split analysis