Pre-Proposal about voting with LP tokens and stablecoin pools

It’s not detailed so it’s not in props section. Let’s discuss and find the truth.

Abstract
As Prop 6 goes live we can see new cool function - voting with stkaed LP-tokens (uni or bal).
Really love that thing, but wanna optimize it a little.

  1. Let’s keep in mind not only CVP that provided for liqudity, but ETH (ofc not in 1:1 ratio)
  2. Make stablecoin pools for CVP

Motivation

Part 1
Motivation behind this is quite simple.
Holding eth = great risk
Holding eth in pools - even greater risk beacuse of impermanent loss.
So to compensate LPs their risks lets add a little votes to their total. For example, with 0.3 wight:

  1. LP has 1 eth and 100 CVP in uni 50/50 (for example)

  2. LP stakes his bags in powerpool and in current model gets 100 votes

  3. In my prop LP will get 100 votes + 1 eth (equals 100 CVP in example)*0,3=130 Votes

That can compinsate risks, but not destroy governance ecosystem.
Community can and should decide on wights for pools.

Part 2
About pools with stablecoins. Well, i personally love stables and don’t really like holding too much assets. But in current pool situation i must hold eth in case to be rewarded.
Stabelcoin is the new blaсk (volume on curve.fi - perfect example) and we cant miss that train.
Pool + incentives for this pool = more liqudity for Power Pool and happier people around.

Really want to disuss it with PP amazing community, so welcome.

5 Likes

Thanks @Zero
Love both ideas

  1. Will think over how to pull the numbers to properly fix the coefficient we use to discount the ETH part
  2. I actually thought about this as well, just was too shy to ask why don’t we have a stablecoin pair:)
    All the users should be able to enter the PP ecosystem with stablecoin (not only ETH)

Will start from the Part 2 - I absolutely for this idea. I myself hold around 40% or crypto in stablecoins.

Speaking about part 1: My from the top of my head reaction is that it gives disproportional power to LPs. But giving it a second thought, it can balance out the reputation system or voting lock. So if we settle on a ETH denominator, I think its a good idea.

Only commenting on Part 1 - I like this proposal and think it makes a lot of sense.

2 Likes

I’m not sure I agree entirely with Part 1, however I understand your motivation.

It will be kind of hard to mathematically determine the weight coefficient, as IL is never the same, it’s going to be a tough battle.

Proposal 6 proposes voting power boost through locking. What if further boosting is increased if you are 1) LPing + 2) locked in governance? ie. If your tokens are merely locked you are get boost+1, but if you are LPing and also locked you get boost+2 ?

What would the locking policy be for staking LP tokens in powerpool in order to acquire voting power? If that isn’t significant this effectively turns voting into just a measure of the whims or the richest merc LPs. This is especially the case for stablecoin liquidity.

would like stable coin pairs as well

The PPIT - USDC is going to be the main pari, giving ability to trade CVP via the Power Index. So guys, part 2 about stablecoins is already in the works

3 Likes