Suggestions for creating Nobel pool, and ideas for refactoring the pool protocol

1

Suggestions for creating Nobel pool, and ideas for refactoring the pool protocol

1,Create the Nobel pool

Objective:

1/, Reward those who contribute to the development of the blockchain, promote the development of the blockchain, and improve the value of the pool protocol

2/, Nobel Pool funds belong to the Pool protocol, no one can withdraw, Pool holders can only manage interest distribution

3/,In a few years, Nobelpool may store more money than a real-world Nobel, this will be a amazing thing

  1. Refactor the pool protocol

Objective:
Shift the saving pool to Nobel pool, realize that pool funds are not dependent on any person or entity, while doing more valuable things, and promoting the development of blockchain
chart:

image
image966Ă—974 112 KB

2 Likes
2

Hi morty, thanks for sharing your idea!

From my understanding of your post, it sounds like you are referring to the “Nobel Prize”, willed into existence by Alfred Nobel to award “prizes to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind”. Although the name is commonly recognized, I do not think it should be used for something like this that aims to benefit people that improve blockchain and protocol tech; It just doesn’t seem right to put those two goals on the same playing field…

Anyway, regardless of what it’s called, there are still many questions to be answered:

  1. Why do the donors vote for the winner and then the poolers “vote” again with just one possible winner?
  2. What happens to the 100 pool that a nominator uses to nominate? Do they keep it? Burn it? Give it to the pool?
  3. How are you going to split up funds coming from the saving pool? Can this be done without changing the protocol?
  4. Why and how does the Nobel pool generate interest?
  5. Why does the graph make it seem like some of the interest from the donations are awarded to savers?

All things considered, I think this idea strays too far from the goal of the PoolTogether protocol, which is to provide a lossless, prize-linked savings account. It does not make sense to add more complexity to the protocol for such a niche implementation. Instead, I think an idea like this is best made as a new protocol built on top of existing protocols such as PoolTogether or Aave.

3

Hi trmid, Thanks for the discussion

Issue:

At the moment I think the biggest danger of pooltogether is that the money in the pool is for investors and individuals, and if investors and individuals take the funds, the protocol will fail!

Workaround:

Realize the decentralization of funds. Build a pool, no matter what the name is, for the time being, it is called nobelpool, the funds of this pool do not belong to investors, do not belong to individuals, only belong to the pool protocol, and no one can take it, just like the real Nobel Prize pool

The key is the accumulation of funds in the pool:

My suggestion:

  1. Inject a percentage of each winning prize into Nobelpool
  2. Donors can donate funds to obtain some other rights
  3. Other methods to raise funds

It is envisaged to go through four stages:
Winter: This phase of Nobelpool funds accumulation is long and painful
Spring: This is the stage when Nobelpool funds grow and bring hope
Summer: Use the funds of NobelPool to obtain stable interest through DeFi
Autumn: Completely realize the decentralization of the pool protocol, which is conducive to the interest prosperity of the pool ecology

As the pool grows, the interest generated can be used for:

  1. Feedback to Nobelpool, self-growth
  2. Reward those who contribute to the blockchain
  3. Used for savings lottery
    4 For charitable donations
    5, or other aspects, DAO deliberate and decide

As for the second one I mentioned, rewarding those who have contributed to the blockchain is based on the fact that there is a Nobel Prize, and the blockchain can also have its own Nobel Prize, after all, it helps to improve the influence, as for whether to reward, how to reward of course needs to be decided by DAO

In response to your question, I offer my own answer:

1, the person who donates Nobelpool has the right to designate the winner, so that Nobelpool funds can be accumulated, for example, the pool holder can nominate 30 winners, and then the donor elects 1 winner, for this winner, the pool holder makes the final determination, if passed, he is the final winner, if not, repeat the above process
2, as long as you hold pool tokens, you can nominate, as for how much to hold, DAO deliberate and decide
3. From each Savingpool winning fund, a certain ratio column is injected into Nobelpool, as for the ratio, it is determined by DAO
4, like SavingPool, earn interest through DeFi
5, if Nobelpool generates enough interest, part of the interest can be used for the lottery, which is also conducive to the development of Savingpool

Summary:
The main purpose is to realize the decentralization of pool funds, independent of investors, individuals

4

Hey @morty - great to see you getting involved!

This is actually not true! The PoolTogether protocol is fully non-custodial. No one has access the the user’s funds but the users.
PTaUSDC (or any other prize pool asset) is minted to a user, matching the deposited USDC 1:1. If a user withdraws the USDC the PTaUSDC is burned.

You should check out stETH.win → https://docs.steth.win/
It’s a PoolTogether v3 pool that is donating 50% of the accumulated yield to charity every week.

Overall I’m happy about all the things you suggest! One question that I haven’t seen answered is would be: Who would be responsible for the execution of these ideas? It sounds like there is work to do in terms of dev, design & communications work.

I probably aggree with @trmid on his point here:

With the hyperstructure coming up, anyone will be able to tap into prize liquidity permissionlessly. Your ideas sound like a great idea for a protocol built on top of the new PoolTogether smart contracts!

6

Hi Tjark, I tried to answer:

1, at present, the saving pool funds are the funds deposited by the user, this fund is the user’s, if they take the funds at the same time, there is no interest, I mean to establish a pool, the funds in the pool do not belong to anyone, only belong to the protocol, DAO can only manage interest, just like the real Nobel Prize
2, the purpose is to expand the ecology in the future
3, I just put forward ideas, the specific implementation needs to be decided by DAO
4. This does not conflict with the savingpool protocol, so that the protocol funds are not dependent on anyone
5, As for the translation error, apologize to you

Thanks for discussing

7

I can see this being built as a custom Vault once the hyperstructure is launched - where yield is partially (or entirely) accrued to the vault itself or another contract, and awarded similarly to how you’ve described.

Setting up a governance contract that uses the vault’s share token as voting power would be quite simple as well.

I think there would need to be some incentive for people to use this though, as most people aren’t as selfless as we’d like.

2 Likes
8

Pool protocol: the interest on the user’s deposit is randomly distributed to the winner, there is no principal loss for the depositor, and there is a chance of winning;
This is user-friendly, but it is not conducive to the long-term stability and development of this protocol
Because I see the deadliest risk, the protocol depends on users’ deposits to function properly, and if one day, everyone withdraws their deposits at the same time (although this is very unlikely), this protocol will cease to exist
In order to completely address this risk, the Pool protocol needs to cultivate its own pool of funds, the funds in this pool do not belong to anyone, only to the protocol, and the DAO can only manage the interest of this pool
Hyperstructure does not address this risk, but it can be combined with this new pool

9

I see your point, but in my opinion the hyperstructure does address this risk/issue. If we can turn it into something 100% autonomous, the protocol will never cease to exist.

I don’t really understand the argument of the protocol “needing” user deposits. If there’s less deposits, there’s less prizes, if there’s more deposits there’s more prizes.

If no one likes ice cream anymore, then yes, ice cream shops should cease to exist; because they don’t provide value. Do you see a future where people don’t value savings anymore?

10

1, If I’m not mistaken, the superstructure solves the problem of automatically adding multi-token revenue pools, solves the source of depositing multiple tokens and increasing income
2, User transfer is important, but this is also where the risk is, but we can solve it completely
3, I’m just addressing the underlying risk and making the agreement better, so that even if no one is saving money in it, the agreement can still output value

9(74$~3$QWR{M{LZ6(YF~BN
9(74$~3$QWR{M{LZ6(YF~BN1140Ă—695 31.2 KB