Proposal 1: increase LP rewards until September 18

Proposals
21

Sounds brilliant. I support this!

22

Hello there from beta tester. Somehow it’s really exited to be the part of the very first proposal.

First of all, great prop! Love the idea of supporting community. Quality of any project hardly based on good community.

Secondly, why there is only 3 weeks for this incentive mining?
In my opinion, there is room for more.

I strongly agree with @acp. His thoughts about slowly decreasing curve and increasing distribution duration are pretty good.

Also i think time cap (like 3 weeks or 3 months for incentive) shouldn’t be the only thing in government decision.
We should also think about community and their power of voting (one of the main goals of this project btw). So duration of incentive and decreasing curve should hardly correlated with beta/gamma unlock.

Feel free to discuss my sentence! It’s really nice to be here.

23

I support the idea of a much higher incentive for LP running on a declining curve for 2 - 3 months. Additionally, I would like to see the earliest LP providers rewarded with the highest incentive rate for the first 3 weeks, being that details where greatly unknown, so their intent was clearly one to support the project early in its life-cycle. This great risk is deserving of great reward.

1 Like
24

Great,I support this!

25

This proposal has my full support. For CVP to thrive we need to have deep liquidity and to attract that the yields need to be competitive.

26

Should the proportional rewards for different pools be considered in a separate proposal?

27

Size of the pool and ratio of liquidity must be considered for this to be fair. If you can join a 95/5 (cvp/eth) pool, then you are barely taking any risk but still getting rewarded equally. I don’t see why this is subjective.

Moreover the only pool that has decent volume and liquidity is uniswap (only pool that technically matters in the market). So treating the 4 pools equally doesn’t really make sense to me in my humble opinion.

28

PIP-1 LIVE ON MAINNET
https://app.powerpool.finance/#/mainnet/proposal/1

So I figured out how it’s done, seemed pretty easy. The PIP-1 is as follows [admins, please make a new category on the forum and forward this post to the PIP-1 with the link to this discussion thread]:

  • Period: August 28 - September 30. Starting from block 10749252
  • Rewards: 2 CVP per block [91,000 CVP a week]
  • Weights: same per pool. While the feedback has been absolutely correct that pools have different IL and size, and that’s something I wanted to bring forward - it seems like at the current point it would take too long to fix this properly. This proposal is a temporary measure till end of September, which will be replaced by a more nuanced economic design going forward.
  • Distribution: frequency is every 7 days.

Pools included:

How to vote

As with any other governance protocol on Ethereum recently, it usually approves and locks for your entire token balance on that wallet. Just be aware of that.

Connect your metamask wallet with CVP and create vote… more instructions here.

1 Like
29

The team explicitly promised all pools would pay the same, so I wouldn’t feel good about them going back on their word and changing that retroactively.

1 Like
30

The reason the uniswap pool has so much more volume is the balancer pools charge a 5% swap fee, so most of the time a trade gets routed to uniswap pools, but the balancer LP’s earn more per trade.

31

Subjective, because taking this large risk you are much less exposed to IL (comparing to putting capital into UNI pool).
I personally invested in UNI.
This is not that straightforward to fairly evaluate risk here.

Also re the trading volumes - you basically couldn’t evaluate what pool would become the most active at the day 0, so its hard to propose a fair methodology of how to count in the trading volumes

But what I fully agree with is that the pool size should be definitely taken into account