Gauge Proposal Template:
TETU protocol what to use Balancer as a primary source of liquidity for its native token. The main reasons are the high reliability of the Balancer protocol and the close relationships between TETU and Balancer after tetuBal token success.
• Website - https://tetu.io/
• Documentation - Introduction - Tetu
• Github Page - Tetu · GitHub
• Communities - Tetu
Tetu is a asset management protocol that implements automated yield farming strategy for users
We want to move our protocol owned liquidity to the Balancer.
Governance: Multi Sig - Tetu
Centralization vectors: n/a
Market History: Tetu token can be volatile in the certain market conditions.
Child Chain Liquidity Streamer: 0xeBEa61d761233b0f1733623FaafBd385eb5b00D7
Polygon Root Gauge w/2% cap: 0x1E0C21296bF29EE2d56e0abBDfbBEdF2530A7c9A
Have you thought about pairing against bb-am-USD potentially if you prefer a stable pair?
The boosted asset will increase gas consumption and complexity.
If we have this pool as the main liquidity - we will use it in our different buybacks mechanics. Polygon is cheap, but it is still a few $.
Boosted pool on AAVE will add a very low amount of additional profit, don’t think it will worth the effort.
is it acceptable to move this forward with a 2% cap? forgot to bring this up earlier but I think a cap is needed here.
2% is pretty restrictive, especially for a growing platform such as Tetu.
Do we have a sense of how much additional gas consumption there would be if paired with bb-am-USD?
Personally I would learn towards 10% cap / bb-am-USD pairing, not that I have much say in the matter
2% is well in line with the norm for a project with Tetu’s market cap. we have not really considered platform growth as an input to whether a cap is needed but maybe you have a point
According to the framework laid out in BIP-57, an 80/20 gauge should be capped at 2% unless it is of a very high mcap coiin.
With around 3-4 million in Market Cap, and without a huge amount of trading volume and revenue, Tetu would only qualify for a 2% pool using an 80/20 makeup or a 50/50. Temple was asked to move from an 80/20 pool to a 50/50 pool even with a market cap of 80 million dollars or so. Even then, they were asked to cap their pool at 10% (the framework mentions nothing of this, but there seems to be some precedent here that is still not 100% clear)
At the same time COW/WETH was granted an uncapped 50/50 pool with a recorded mcap of 15 million.
It doesn’t seem very fair to temple or badger, or healthy for the ecosystem to grant an 80/20 gauge at over 2%. The tetu mcap seems way to small for a 50/50 gauge at over 2% at this time, and it would be unfair to other smaller DAOs to grant this. Based on the framework, even a 50/50 gauge capped at over 2% would require tetu to have well over a 10 million dollar market cap.
It would be nice to have more guidance about this and I’d like to take this opportunity to once again point out that the framework is hard to understand and is not being consistently re-enforced. With the complex pool types balancer supports, some sort of framework is required, but the current one is so complicated it seems to generally not be referenced or used. Maybe we should also take a look at that.
I do think it’s reasonable not to have lots of BAL emissions directed towards 80/20 pools. Similar to the tetuBAL pool with a high a-factor that is kept off balance, this doesn’t create capital efficiency for balancer, it just allows users to farm more BAL while creating less liquidity to trade (which is where balancer makes its money from). Pairing with bb-a-usd also helps balancer make more fees, and while not part of the framework, using pools that earn assets at rest are a net positive for the ecosystem.
Is it commonplace for a gauge cap to be changed based on a project’s scoring on the framework changing over time? If so, then I agree that my line about “Tetu is a growing project” doesn’t carry much weight.
That said, if the framework is not consistently being enforced, I’m not sure that there is justification for a cap. Scrolling down the list I see plenty of uncapped gauges.
There are some good posts in this thread that are relevant here: BIP-[XXX] Cap veBAL wrapper stableswap pools at 5% of emissions each - #6 by C0_G1
And since nobody will say it: I don’t think we need to be concerned about a TETU/USDC gauge being used as a vehicle to blackhole emissions. There are many TETU holders and no one entity controls a majority of the supply.
It is true there are many TETU holders, the bigger problem is at a certain point no one will buy TETU no matter how high the APR is. TETU swap fee APR can only be so much. The delta between protocol revenue and emissions spent will simply be too high, this is what the cap is meant to protect. See BADGER, CREAM, and DIGG pools as clear historical examples of this in action.
I believe the framework is being consistently enforced for 80/20 gauge requests after the implementation of the framework where the market cap was in the range of TETU’s. if anyone can point to an example that contradicts that I’d be interested to see it. There is no desire to single out TETU at all, I greatly appreciate that you all want to move over your liquidity. You’ve no doubt seen me make similar comments requesting a cap in several other 80/20 proposals lately. Again, I have no ill will against TETU.
Just a quick note since I’ve seen this referenced in other discussions - I think the plan is for $TETU emissions to be switched “on” again, sometime soon, pending launch of the new vaults.
got it, I must be looking at gauges (like PAL/USDC) that were passed before the new framework. All good.
PAL/USDC was transitioned to a 2% cap as part of the framework rollout
I think 2% cap is fair given Tetu’s market cap, existing exit liquidity and emission rate. Here’s a quick comparison to put things into perspective:
Aura FDV = 202M
Aura Liquidity (2 pools) = 10.7M
Liquidity/FDV Ratio = 5.29%
LP APR (2 pools) = 16%
TETU FDV = 14.2M
Tetu Liquidity (Multi pools) = 373k
Liquidity/FDV Ratio = 2.62%
LP APR with 2% Cap Single Pool Concentration = 222%
Fair to assume that with 2% emissions, Tetu can easily have double digit Liquidity / FDV offering much smoother entry and exit to/from Tetu ecosystem.
Tetu team is not against 2% capacity for this pool.
Can change later, right?
Let’s go further with a proposal
Meaning: we are happy to present a proposal with a 2% cap on this gauge.
cheers, updated the OP with the 2% capped gauge address. good to go for the next voting round (24th).