Deeper liqudity for PIPT and future Inecitive rewards plans

I think liqudity at PIPT\ETH should be deeper, it is one of main goals of index: to be traded by traders. 80\20 is not good for this. need 50\50
At same time it make cvp\eth liqudity deeper two, because pipt contains cvp.
So i think good idea to take some rewards from cvp\eth pool and give it to pipt\eth 50\50 pool

CVP/EEETH pair has $6m of liquidity on Uniswap. PIPT and YETI pools are located on balancer and have $5.9m and $2m of liquidity respectively.

Why do you think 50/50 is better for traders and how is the rewards reallocation would benefit the CVP ecosystem?

I think one of goals for powerpool is giving opportunity to trade basket of assets for traders. Liqudity is imortant for this. More liudity=more trades, more fees, more small holders. So it is obviosly that main pool for this is 50\50 pipt\eth . If someones fear IL, they can stake at PIPT only.

Second,50\50 pipt\eth will give indirectly about 500k-1kk liudity for cvp\eth pair. So about 5-10% from CVP\ETH pool rewards can be reallocated to pipt\eth.

First is very important. Second not so.

Why current 80\20 better than 50\50?

lesser IL risk, plus you need less capital compared to 50/50 pool. If you have let’s say 1000 PIPT, you only need like $1300 as opposed to $2000

We have PIPT only staking. MAX IL(50\50)+MIN IL(pipt only)=optimum.
80\20 is not effective use of capital. If we want to people trade pipt as index, we need more liqudity.
Plz think about it.

I prefer having the 80/20 ratio for PIPT right now.

Currently I believe increasing TVL should be the top priority. Implementing this change could cause people to sell off PIPT for ETH in order to maintain the amount of liquidity they are providing. This would reduce the amount of governance tokens being held, which is bad given the meta-governance objectives.

The pools are already deep enough that they can support new users entering large positions with a small amount of slippage. It’s hard for me to see where any additional value would be generated from creating a 50/50 pool and distributing new rewards for that.


U have short-term view. Liqudity is not enough even for small-medium traders. LPs can go to pipt only staking. It is very strange have goal to create a liqudity for pipt trading and dont use most effective instrument

OK so you’re essentially saying that over the long-term LPs will provide the same amount of PIPT regardless of the pool being 80/20 or 50/50, so it makes more sense to use a 50/50 design to increase the amount of ETH in the pool and thus make the pool better for traders.

I understand where you’re coming from but I’d still be hesitant to make any changes without a better value proposition:

  • Are you proposing a separate 50/50 pool with its own set of rewards? Or would we get rid of the Balancer pool and move everything over to Uniswap? Either implementation could cause a lot of unnecessary problems in the short-term compared to leaving things as-is.

  • Removing rewards from the CVP/ETH pool doesn’t seem like a great source for additional rewards. Rewards for this pool were just cut by 50% and I would hate to see it reduced further right now. IMO the rewards are a good level right now to convince people to LP vs. immediately selling off farmed CVP.

  • I don’t see a big reason to do this now. In the worst case scenario I could see issues related to implementation, rewards, and devs having to spend time focusing on this. In the best case scenario I’m not seeing much upside though - can you quantify this? For example I know that DPI is a similar index product with deep liquidity on Uniswap - are they capturing a ton of value from trades that we’re missing here due to lower liquidity?

1 Like

Im new here and i have only view and idea, not specific plan.
I think at final point we should have 100%(no IL) pipt and 50\50(max IL) pools. Transition and rewards should be discused more

I refuse to vote for anything that is written by someone with terrible spelling and sentence structure. That is all.

This is a global community. English isn’t everybody’s first language, so I would implore you to discuss these ideas on their merits rather than grammar.

Also note that this is merely a forum for discussion. Official proposals that make it to mainnet should be much more polished, but for this forum I would encourage all users to participate in discussion regardless of their English language proficiency.