Check out the docs for the full details of the current liquidity mining program.
pools.vision is an excellent resource. Keep in mind there are other things to take into account in addition to the liquidity mining incentives, like trading volume and impermanent loss.
Wellā¦ I have to say Iām very disappointed to see the standing consensus on t1 assets. I hold exclusively BAL/WETH pools because Iāve become increasingly fond of this platform over the past 7 months, yet I see absolutely no one talking about incentivising multi-asset (2+) pools. It seems to me like weāre trying to attack markets already cornered by the likes of UNI and CRV. Why are we not playing into the main advantage Balancer has over other DEXs; multi-pools?
I also find the drop from 71% to 17% extremely disagreeable and while I understand the argument that higher $USD volume = higher $BAL in the long run, I also see cause for concern of other large BAL holders dumping in the short term, which would basically make my entire investment into Balancer a loser vs just holding BTC or ETH.
Iām concerned that some of the Ballers + Devs are putting the ideal of more decentralised governance ahead of the users and LPs that actually ābackā the value of BAL (if you will excuse the crude way of explaining that thought). That is to say, I would expect to see a large sell off in $BAL if you hammer the BAL/WETH APYs the way you describe here.
Balancer is a fantastic project, community and idea. Consequently, it needs to defend itself and its interests. Balancerās interests include itās Governance token holders.
Iām sorry to come across as āthe greedy guyā on the forum twice in such a short time frame, but if Iām one thing, itās a strategist, and this looks like a really bad strategy to me.
Look forward to getting some feedback.
Cheers
Context āStrategistā (maybe irrelevant): Long time gamer, 4800MMR Dota 2 support player. Former Service Manager in a Laboratory Automation company that went belly-up because the Directors refused to listen to my advice (stop rolling out junk products and take your time, the customer will appreciate a delayed, but GOOD product much more than one that shows up on time, but doesnāt do what the sales guy said it would), despite years of experience in the field and face to face with customers.
Your proposal is very good! I want to vote in the snapshot, but I canāt click. Can you tell me how to vote? thank you!
In fact Iāve decided to start a new comment to address one of the points I referred to in the previous post:
higher $USD volume = higher $BAL in the long run
Not necessarily. Greater $USD volume only serves to increase the fees earned by pool LPs, with weekly BAL as a bonus. If there are 3 other pools that all yield the same BAL / Week / $Locked, thereās little incentive for people to buy AND HOLD BAL. This is a downward price mechanic. If I want to take part in Governance proposal why wouldnāt I just buy up BAL at gov time and sell it when Iām done? THAT is a gameable mechanic.
I think we should consider the present APY boost to BAL/WETH pools as a mechanism to encourage long term BAL holders who are active and involved in the community and governance, not try to dish out BAL to as many people as possible.
Iāll leave it here for now. Again, looking forward to feedback.
It seems I wrote both of my responses in ignorance of some information surrounding the intended functionality of BAL token, so my input may not be particularly useful.
@DavisRamsey , you bring up a good point. If we incentivize only one pair for a particular crypto asset, the liquidity will consolidate into the incentivized pair, and we run the risk of turning into a bunch of 50/50 pools and lose our product market fit of being the āgeneralized AMMā. Perhaps it may be more advantageous to not target BAL rewards to specific pools, but rewards to particular crypto assets. Then we can incentivize the crypto assets that are most beneficial to Balancer, and encourage the liquidity providers to contribute to any pool of their choosing. In summary, would it be more beneficial to change the Tier 1, 2, and 3 pools from pairs to specific crypto assets?
Thanks @Shawman. If I understand correctly, what you propose is closer in the spectrum to the V1 liquidity mining program, and therefore has some of the same issues that weāre trying to fix in the V2 program - I might be missing something but I think assets-based tiers would have get us back to offchain calculations and adjusting liquidity to avoid gaming attempts.
I understand your concern, but I donāt think we run that risk. Weāll inevitably end up incentivizing uneven weighted pools, simply because thereās too much liquidity in that type of pool in V1 - meaning thereās demand for this type of pool on the LP side of things.
But on tier 1 pools I do think it makes sense to focus on 50/50 ETH/BTC and 50/50 ETH/stablecoin.
Because if we think of the network of pools, where each pool is connected to others by the tokens they have in common, the current state of things is such that the long tail of tokens is poorly connected to the main ones - eg someone looking to buy ZRX with USDC might have to go through a high price impact USDC/ETH trade first. But the reduced marginal cost of multihop trades in V2 means an exchange user could go from USDC to DAI to ETH to ZRX with very little price impact if those 3 pools were highly liquid. Tier 1 pools would act as the hubs that connect all the others.
A case could be made for something like a 65/35 ETH/stablecoin pool on tier 1, but itās a bet on 50/50 LPs from other platforms being comfortable with making the switch.
One of the key aspects for V2 must be incentivizing BAL holding/pooling. The current practice is good with many BAL/WETH and some other BAL pools. These could be consolidated for sure.