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.