Proposal 9: Update to Vesting, Liquidity Mining & PowerIndex Design

Thanks for a so visual comparison @Sergey, can you please clarify on what do you mean by “Idle token”?

50 mn CVPs that will be locked at least for the next 3yrs - burn half of them and use another half as a veto voting mechnism in emergency case

Centralisation? Yes
Elegant? yes:)

To be honest, I don’t truly understand what all you say but great to see an active proposal here.

aahhaha why?

this explains pretty simply why the proposed tokenomics is beter

And this gives more details on the selection of PI composites

1 Like

Great, thank you so much :blush:

Hey everyone, added two modifications to the proposal that I believe will definitely improve it.

3 Likes

read the proposal. I like this improvement - it will massively boost APY and TVL, and will help to compete with PieDAO/DPI. Balancer 80/20 is also a good option for PIPT

3 Likes

There’s something really major I think someone needs to clearly state/confirm: Am I correct to think that the liquidity mining reward of 400k/mth is only referring to the provision of liqudity for CVP/ETH in Uniswap/Balancer (yellow bit in the graph in the proposal). There is a seperate liqudity incentive (white bit in the graph in the proposal) for PIPT suppliers (either directly staking PIPT via the powerPool app or via a (currently non-existing) PIPT/ETH Uniswap pool)…Am I getting the proposal right here? If so, how much is the reward for PIPT suppliers?

What is ‘Organic LPs (community pool?)’?
What is DAO grant?
Do current incentives for liquidity provision of CVP/ETH on Uniswap come from ‘Organic LPs (community pool?)’? Do they come from the 77m in the Treasury?

you also say:
“so 24 000 000 LM rewards
and 3 000 000 govn rewards
and 4 500 000 community pool
were sitting inside that 77 000 000”
Where can I see the breakdown of how the 77m is earmarked? You covered 31.5 of 77m…

why rush the burning/locking up by Dec 20? Why not let the project grow for a few months and then vote again on burning/locking up?

FOR both the adjustments

All is correct. Mate all the numbers are in the proposal (yet ot be finalised though)

  1. PI LM - 1st month - 1 mn, 2ns month - 700k, after that - 400k per month
  2. CVP/ETH LM - 91k per week

Well, just not to constantly change the tokenomics: we can include all the key adjustments into one proposal IMO

Hey everyone, after discussing with the team we added two more minor modifications to the proposal.

I like this modifications, because:

  1. Users will not dump CVP from rewards into market if index`s cap is low and this will prevent CVP price dump which may lead to index cap dump (cvp is a part of index but you all know it));
  2. Pipt LM program was far ahead of CVP lm program, now they are pretty much close to each other;

For TL/DRers: we need to attract as much liquid in index as we can. And make it fast.
That`s all about)

1 Like

Great modification. Smart move! Definitely support. When it goes to real voting?

FOR IT!

@YanDelphi how about adding a paragraph re burning of up to 50% of CVP in the final version of the proposal?

We can come up with exact nu,ber of the tokens to be burnt after the mainnet launch

probably, the token burn has to be a separate proposal. Let’s see how the index will perform and after that, we can burn tokens (as it is an option to support price expectations). It is like a secret CVP weapon:)

Is there a bug in the UI? It looks like a titled Proposal 9 is currently active in the governance queue. What’s up with this?

It was a bug with our backend after system upgrade. Now it is fixed