Proposal discussion: ASSY index creation

thanks for summing this up Marc,

I believe we should move forward with this, but my main motivation is that we need to breakthrough with TVL. because so far DeFi ETF use case doesn’t work properly: DPI, PP, PieDAo have relatively low TVLs. Compare with mith.cash easily aggregating $1 bn+ in a matter of days despite the founder’s reputation

Having said the above, we need to consider pretty important questions:

  1. I would suggest decreasing the total boosted CVP rewards 2x (2,25 mn), or at least 1.5x (3 mn).
    otherwise the marketing expenses are pretty high: we distribute $13.5 mn CVPs while investors are buying $2.5 mn CVPs (4.5 mn CVPs distributed vs 0.83 CVPs purchased)

  2. Lets please vest the CVP rewards at least for 10 weeks (though I am suggesting 20 weeks vesting)

  3. I am pretty sure Onsen is very good for TVL growth but very bad for CVP boost program, but I don’t have a solution for this atm, I was only able to advise on “how to include CVP in ASSY not including it”
    but “how to include CVP in ASSY on Onsen not including it” is more complex hahaha

6 Likes

well, I see now that the #3 is discussable and can additionally boost the TVL, so by the sum of the factors I think its good to take this risk and to go with Onsen

1 Like

Exciting! Thanks for the updated proposal

1 Like

Regarding boosted CVP rewards, would you support the proposed rewards for the first month only?

I agree that the 4.5mn annual CVP distribution seems high given the amount of CVP needed to be purchased to earn these rewards, but this trade-off would look much better if we could reduce rewards in subsequent months (similar to the reductions for the PIPT and YETI pools). Those pools seem to have retained TVL despite rewards decreasing in January, so this could be a viable strategy.

1 Like

Its a intersting idea.
I mean its will bootstrap the pool for a month or two…
We saw a few weeks ago what over supply (in an ALT bear phase is doing to liquidity pools…
Espeacily if the testing rewards will be add to the market in ~2.5 month time (not sure what’s the time line on this).

I am still thinking:)

As I see the idea is that most folks will ape into Onsen and when Onsen rewards go low they will realize that they can get more rewards in CVP via the boost program

What comes to mind first? Make fixed rewards like this
TVL <$25mn - 15% CVP reward
TVL <$50mn - 10% CVP reward
TVL <$75mn - 7% CVP reward
TVL <$100mn - 5% CVP reward

something like that.

Didnt model this yet, but the main idea is for this pool to have TVL aligned rewards, not time-aligned

4 Likes

Given that this proposal is live now, is it not including the suggestions @Sergey made regarding TVL based rewards, increased vesting and slightly lowering the cvp rewards?

I was in favor of those suggestions but I am not sure if they are part of it?

yes, it doesnt include it.

Looks like we will have to make additional proposal

@Lemiscate what are your opinions on the above idea of decreasing the CVP locked rewards, slightly increasing the vesting period of CVP earned and having TVL locked rewards?

Personally I think lowering rewards seems more sensible to mitigate price dumping, increasing vesting should also be the case esp more if the rewards are quite high

My take is that it’s up to the community to decide on this.

that can also be part of quarterly ASSYnomics discussions. rewards programs are here to incentivize liquidity and mitigate slippage.

I think it’s very important for the Token success that we have kickstarted liquidity, then let the market act on its own.

1 Like

That fair lets see how the first month goes. Excited :slight_smile:

Bonjour, où ai-je fait une erreur ? Pour essai, je mets 300 DAI pour obtenir des ASSY(environ 240), je clique sur approve(environ 5 euro de frais), mais n’ai obtenu aucun ASSY et débité d’aucun DAI… qu’ai-je approuvé et dépensé ces 5 euros pour quoi ? Si je clique sur “supply”, dans ma fenêtre MetaMask j’ai plus de 180gwei et au niveau gas plus d’1million… je ne comprends pas trop… quelqu’un peut m’éclairer, svp ?

Bonjour, j’ai utilisé Google Translate pour comprendre ce que vous avez écrit ci-dessus, je l’utilise maintenant, donc je ne sais pas si ce que je dis sera clair.


«Approuver» permet au contrat intelligent d’interagir avec votre portefeuille. Aucun jeton n’est transféré. Cela lui donne simplement la possibilité d’interagir avec votre portefeuille.


Quelques conseils généraux: À l’avenir, pour toutes les transactions que vous effectuez sur Ethereum, n’utilisez pas le prix gwei par défaut que MetaMask vous recommande d’utiliser. Au lieu de cela, modifiez manuellement le prix gwei en fonction de ce site Web chaque fois que vous effectuez une transaction: https://www.gasnow.org/

180 gwei, c’est trop pour la plupart des gens de toute façon.

La raison pour laquelle il est si grand est à cause des prix du gaz Ethereum. Ce n’est pas la faute d’ASSY.

Je vous recommande d’aller sur le site Web que j’ai lié et d’attendre que le prix STANDARD ou FAST gwei atteigne peut-être 50 gwei?

Cela signifie que ce sera plus de 3 fois moins cher que de payer 180 gwei.


La limite de gaz est la deuxième chose. Il doit désormais être supérieur à 1 million pour cette transaction. La raison d’une grande limite de gaz est que l’index convertit le Dai que vous fournissez en 4 jetons et en d’autres choses également, ce qui est une transaction complexe qui nécessite plus de ressources de calcul.

Par exemple, si vous effectuez une transaction simple comme l’envoi de Dai de mon portefeuille à votre portefeuille qui nécessite beaucoup moins de ressources, la limite de gaz pour cette transaction pourrait être de 21000 gaz.

Mais une transaction plus complexe nécessite plus d’unités de gaz!

J’espère que le prix du gaz et la limite du gaz sont clairs maintenant! Adoptez de bonnes pratiques en choisissant le prix du gaz et la limite de gaz ou vous paierez trop cher.


Vous devez également savoir que le coût de transaction indiqué par Metamask est basé sur la limite maximale de gaz. Le prix Metamask indiqué suppose que tout le gaz sera utilisé.

Mais parfois, la transaction n’utilise pas toute la limite maximale de gaz, de sorte qu’elle peut parfois être un peu moins chère que Metamask le dira.


Mon conseil est donc de fixer la limite de gaz à 1 600 000 millions (je pense que la transaction utilisera environ 1 300 000) et le gaz non utilisé vous sera restitué. Et choisissez le prix gwei au prix “standard” ou “rapide” recommandé par le site que je vous ai montré.

Peut-être viser entre 40 et 55 gwei?


Note latérale: La raison pour laquelle je dis utiliser 1,6 million au lieu de 1,3 million est si, par exemple, vous fixez la limite de gaz à 1,3 million mais que la transaction nécessite 1,4 million de gaz, vous manquerez de gaz et l’accord échouera, mais vous devra encore payer le coût total parce que tout le gaz a été épuisé. mais toujours pas assez pour terminer la transaction. C’est pourquoi je dis laisser un petit écart supplémentaire entre la limite de gaz (1,6 million) et ce que je pense que le gaz utilisé sera (environ 1,3 million). Vous recevrez en retour du gaz supplémentaire qui n’est pas utilisé.

J’ai passé tellement de temps à écrire ceci, j’espère que c’est clair et j’espère que cela aide

Hi guys and @powerpoolAdmin,

I would like to suggest new option for the ASSY index and that is possibility to supply/mint ASSY index by CVP token, either under ETH (ERC20) or single asset header.

The reason is that it would be much easier for LP providers to increase their stake in ASSY with CVP than with any other asset since all income in PowerPool is generated in CVP.

Let’s say that I claim 1000 CVP today and want to mint ASSY. In the current state first I have to swap my CVP to ETH (USDC, DAI, etc) and just then I can mint ASSY. But with this new proposed option I could just mint my ASSY with CVP right away and keep some part of it for the boost, if I would like to.

I believe this upgrade would inspire more people to rather increase their stake in ASSY than sell the claimed CVP for taking profit or any other reason and it would also save some money on the fees, since we could just skip one middle-step in minting ASSY (that is swapping CVP to ETH or other asset necessary to mint ASSY).

@powerpoolAdmin please let me know, whether this functionality could be added right away or I need to submit a proposal in the governance section.

Keep up the great work, guys! <3

4 Likes

do you understand that it means direct dump of CVP to ETH via etherscan and further exchange to four assets?

@powerpoolAdmin I thought this too and it didn’t make much sense to me either. But from what I see, those that claim their cvp early (before the 10 weeks) just sell it anyway coming to the same effect. Coz why else claim cvp early unless you want to sell right? If you plan to hold on to your cvp why would you claim it early.

But the issue you point out is correct, coz it incetivises even cvp hodlers to just dump cvp to join the index which will hurt cvp price.

So yea nvm i change my tune on it, i don’t think this is beneficial for cvp sorry.

The proposal of xCVP is really great, we need to allow seamlessly deposit mined CVP to xCVP (ofc if community approves xCVP creation). It will be really great opportunity to use CVP, and it also will include governance I hope (so while your CVP is locked in xCVP and earning interest rate, you also have 100% of governance rights)

I did not actually think about it this way because it was never my motivation to dump my vested CVP, I always wanted to stay in the PowerPool and increase my stake either by minting an index or adding liquidity to CVP/ETH pool.

Nevertheless there is not much people can do with their CVP right now… either they sell it or at better case they mint an index… but holding just CVP does not make sense because they earn you nothing (no fees distribution so far)… so my point with using CVP to mint ASSY was that people could at least keep the half of their CVP for the boost even though they would use the other half for minting ASSY.

I fully agree that we must find other usecases for CVP as soon as possible and I really love the idea of xCVP, which could be used for voting as well as for boosting all of the indices. Thank you @MichelVaillant for the great idea… and I hope @powerpoolAdmin and the team come with the technical implementation soon.