Changes to the previous proposal by JacksonHall

Proposal Summary

  1. Apply the volume-weighted LP-mining rewards for all these pools starting from block 10908502:
    Balancer pool: /pool/0xbd7a8f648262b6cb29d38b575df9f27e6cdecde1/
    Balancer pool: /pool/0x10d9b57f769fbb355cdc2f3c076a65a288ddc78e/
    Balancer pool: /pool/0x1af23b311f203844108137d6ee399109e4981401/
    Uniswap: /pair/0x12d4444f96c644385d8ab355f6ddf801315b6254
    Rewards will remain the same at 91,000 CVP weekly (2 per block).

  2. Apply vesting to all rewards from week 2 onwards with a 10-week release schedule. An exception should be made for week 3 rewards released to the BPT/UniV2 LP staking contract from block 10868783 up to a block number that will be defined at a later date, taking into account the time that is needed to discuss and and implement the changes of the proposal.

  3. Weeks to be defined by the following blocks:

  4. Week 2: From block 10794752 to block10840252

  5. Week 3: From block 10840253 to block 10868782

  6. Weeks 4-6: From block 10908502 to block 11045002

Disclamer: each proposal couldn’t make everyone happy and we need more complex decisions, for example proposal batches with 2-5 proposals to vote simultaneously.
According to this proposal motivation part with concerns about PowerPool future developments including the price of token let me make some corrections.

As mentioned in that proposal we need to increase liquidity on Uniswap by removing 3 Balancer pools from LP rewards program and lock LP rewards for 12 weeks.
But a lot of early supporters lock the liquidity in these pools. Even if these pools almost unuseful its not right to just disable them. And I understand that 50/50 pools are even more risky comparing to others.
My point on this is to redesign LP-mining rewards this way:
Rewards will remain the same at 91,000 CVP weekly (2 per block).
Starting from eth block 10908502 LP-mining rewards remains for all the pools including Balancer ones but with a proportional distribution according to the pools trading volume.
Props: Better liquidity on Uniswap pool as it has the largest volume and so the largest LP rewards.
Balancer 50/50 pool LP-s could easily switch to the Uniswap pool
95/5 and 10/90 pool supporters choose to stay in these pools only for balancer comissions and BAL tokens with less CVP LP rewards or to slowly migrate to Uniswap pool to obtain full-sized LP-mining rewards from PowerPool while helping to make a deep liquidity on Uniswap.

x10 LP-mining rewards should not be released instantly as its not some farm project. So the second part of JacksonHall proposal remains the same but with maybe slightly less lock periods.

Also we need to discuss these questions to to allow our community to be confident at least in the near future:
-the extension of 10x LP-mining rewards for a longer period
-some delays or other similar proposals for beta and gamma release shedules.
-some kind of staking with locks to the project believers who dont want to participate in liquidity mining programs and risk their own capital (might be applied to the part of beta and gamma round rewards).


Again punishment for balancer LPs =cvp holders)
Any idea of adding vesting to tiny LPs rewards whitout adding same vesting for tester rewards by same proposal is ridiculos
U trying to pump price at the expense of LPs to get profit. Thats not how it works
And i dont see any profit from clozing balancer pools

Pools remains functional in this case. Nobody closing them or delisting them from LP rewards. To make a sustantional growth much more Uniswap liquidity needed as for example adding 20 million new liquidity to the Uniswap pool automatically make the price go up cause 20m liquidity on 5m tokens is around 4$ even if everyone dump their tokens and no holders left. So more Uniswap liquidity - higher the price of token. No miracle.
Balancer 50/50 pool LP’s can easily migrate to the Uniswap pool with no changes.
Balancer 95/5 and 10/90 pools is not about liquidity. 95/5 pool is more for believers who can’t afford large ethereum amounts to stake but adding tokens to this pool is more effective than just hold the token itself. But this pool remains active so they receive rewards in BAL tokens plus pool comissions which can increase the amount of tokens they held instead of just hold the tokens for a long-term. And also mention that they will receive increased rewards for the first three weeks at least.
As of 10/90 pool - I dont see any purpose of this because participants hold almost pure ethereum instead of cvp token. Why must they receive 25% of increased LP rewards while holding 90% ethereum (which greatly decrease their risk on cvp price fluctuations)?
As of tester rewards: you cannot lock the Alpha tokens anyway, only if every tester go to lock his tokens by himself. But at the same time beta and gamma tokens unlocks might be discussed as these tokens not distributed yet.
Gogano, do you want everybody to receive a lot of LP rewards coming days and dump the price further instead of partial unlocks? This is exactly the line that separates strong believers versus flippers.
I told that we need more complicated decisions and a bunch of proposals.

And another one:
What punishment are you talking about? 10/90 ethereum holders? its not a CVP holders.
95/5? Yes. Its truly the CVP holders. But they holding a token and receive LP rewards providing almost no liquidity to the trades. So there is some strange situation. they also receive 25% of increased rewards for almost no liquidity providing. Is that honest to 50/50 LP’s who risks much more? I see the solution is to provide some sort of staking with great rewards instead of naming True long-term holders into Liquidity Providers.

I can understand you if you are 95/5 pool participant, but sharing the same rewards to you is not honest from the 50|50 LP’s side. Think about it.

  1. Sry it seems like u don’t understand how pools work. This will not effect the price (only vesting)
  2. If you speak about honest first create proposal with vesting for lps,gamma+ beta and we’ll discuss that with pleasure.
    3 it’s not lps responsible for this strange situation. Why all of us should pay 100+$ fees? And for what? To get uni pool get a tiny more liquid? No any real profit for project here

Please share your math how the pools work. I’ll listen to you with pleasure.
Lets talk about math if only one CVP/ETH Uniswap pool exists and 5m TTS:
20m liquidity on Uniswap then 10m worth CVP and 10m worth ETH.
Lets take the current price of CVP. We’ll see that in this case (@2.5$/CVP) already 4m tokens are in this pool. So the practical bottom (if everyone dump their tokens) can be something like 2$ plus some slippage because if every token will be bought by LP there will be only one way up. Where Im wrong in this case?


Beta and Gamma will be additionally vested I think - as all people want that. We just need to issue a proposal for that!

1 Like

totally agree, I think this proposal should be executed

it should be in one proposal only

cvp is listed in different cex. price comes from cex. not uni
if people add more eth\cvp in uni pool price will not change
Altcoins have no bottom
if… if… if… in what world it could be?)

I think that proposal for additional vesting Beta/Gamma should be a separate one. It is too important question

This proposal is :Testers +uni lps (majority) against balanser Lps (minority)
proposal about vesting for minority will be easily pass
proposal about vesting for testers will not
in a result testers dump there free tokens on LPs. Profit!

You don’t see the long-term strategy here. You think that all testers dream to dump tokens on you. I can share some stuff with you - there are Alpha/Beta/Gamma people that agree to extend lock-ups/vesting for Beta/Gamma, read the forum, I saw some messages here about it! It is simple game man.
If for example somebody is Beta tester, and he is clever one, he understands that if this vesting wouldn’t be extended, the token price will be low. And if it would, he can get significantly bigger profits in long-term period. Moreover, a lot of people want first of all to participate in governance, and not dump. Locked tokens allow that as it was clearly stated by the team.

You speak about theory. messeges is not a decision
Of couse not all want to dump but if they could it is bad situation. We need equal desicion for all groups of holders.

the rewards were distributed, but I still think that in the future rewards we need to do a vesting

yeah, I agree with you

the voting has started: