Provide LP Rewards for One Uniswap Pool Only and apply vesting to them


  1. Remove 3 Balancer pools from the LP rewards program. Allocate all rewards to the one pool (Uniswap) starting from block10908502. Rewards will remain the same at 91,000 CVP weekly (2 per block).

  2. Apply vesting to all rewards for week 2 onwards with a 12 week release schedule. An exception should be made for week 3 rewards released to the BPT/UniV2 LP staking contract from block 10868783 up to a block number that will be defined at a later date, taking into account the time that is needed to discuss and and implement the changes of the proposal.

  3. Weeks to be defined by the following blocks:

1. Week 2: From block 10794752 to block10840252 
2. Week 3: From block 10840253 to block 10868782 
3. Weeks 4-6: From block 10908502 to block 11045002


The part 1 of the proposal

Since Proposal 1 passed, LP rewards have increased 10x from 9,100 CVP per week up to 91,000 CVP per week. Despite this, pool statistics demonstrate that the 3 Balancer pools process significantly lesser trading volumes than the sole Uniswap pool. Over the last 24 hrs, the Uniswap Pool handled ~$730k worth of trades, while the three Balancer pools accounted for a mere ~$130k of volume cumulatively according to Coingecko. Such a discrepancy can be attributed to:

  1. Very high commissions in Balancer pools: 5% in the 90/10 and 50/50 Pool, and 3% in the 95/5 Pool.
  2. Inefficient composition of these pools for facilitating trading. For example, the 95/5 Pool is more about holding CVP than exchanging them.

In fact, the 95/5 pool handled a mere $30k trading volume, the 90/10 pool did $52k, and the 50/50 pool accounted for $65k in volume.

Based on these facts, it is completely inefficient to distribute rewards to these pools as each of them has less than 10% of the cumulative DEX trading volumes for CVP (~3.5%, ~6%, ~7.5% for the 95/5, 90/10, 50/50 pools respectively). Despite this they are rewarded with 25% of overall rewards.

Volumes can be verified here:

  1. Uniswap: /pair/0x12d4444f96c644385d8ab355f6ddf801315b6254 25
  2. Balancer pool: /pool/0xbd7a8f648262b6cb29d38b575df9f27e6cdecde1/
  3. Balancer pool: /pool/0x10d9b57f769fbb355cdc2f3c076a65a288ddc78e/
  4. Balancer pool: /pool/0x1af23b311f203844108137d6ee399109e4981401/shares

The community is not satisfied with this rewards distribution.

The part 2 of the proposal

Last week CVP token significantly declined in value from ~$5 to ~$2.7. No doubts, it is not only connected with the LPs selling rewards, but also an overall market situation. Taking into consideration that the token price of CVP is an important metric of project success, affecting LM APYs for example, it will be good to offer more a long-term oriented strategy for LPs.

Applying vesting to LPs will not only support token price and the project itself, but also change LP orientation from a short-term farming strategy to a longer-term and more supportive one. The project definitely needs more long-term supporters right now.


Part 1 of the proposal

Remove the following pools from the LP rewards program:

  1. Balancer pool: /pool/0xbd7a8f648262b6cb29d38b575df9f27e6cdecde1/
  2. Balancer pool: /pool/0x10d9b57f769fbb355cdc2f3c076a65a288ddc78e/
  3. Balancer pool: /pool/0x1af23b311f203844108137d6ee399109e4981401/shares

Allocate all LP rewards to the Uniswap Pool:

  1. Uniswap: /pair/0x12d4444f96c644385d8ab355f6ddf801315b6254

This would reward LPs of the pool which is used for CVP trading by the majority of the community members according to the statistics presented above. Rewards remain the same:

  • Rewards: 2 CVP per block, or ~91,000 CVP/weekly

Implement these changes from the block 10908502 (22-23 September) up to block 11045002 (~13 October). Should the proposal pass, a special topic on the Power Forum will be created to review the results of the proposal’s implementation.

Part 2 of the proposal

As per the previously passed proposal, past rewards should be distributed at a rate of 2 CVP per block to the vesting contract. The contract should linearly release 1/12 of the CVP weekly. An exception is to be made for all tokens which are in the BPT/LP staking contract as they can already be freely claimed.

Apply a similar rule for the week 4 to week 6 rewards, allocating all rewards to the single Uniswap pool.

Note: Weeks are defined by the following blocks:

  • Week 2: From block 10794752 to block10840252
  • Week 3: From block 10840253 to block 10868782
  • Weeks 4-6: From block 10908502 to block 11045002


If this proposal passes, it will dramatically improve CVP liquidity, decrease slippage, turn LPs from short-term farmers into long-term supporters of the token price. I appreciate community feedback here on the Power Forum. Let’s solve these problems together.


I just think that deeper liquidity is more important right now, let’s discuss it

It not LPs create this pools with such big fees. We dont responsible for the volumes. I lost big % of my funds in cvp only for eth fees (proxy in balancer\ add in pool\deposit bpt tokens). U are right im am holder in 95\5 pool and testers dump on me all the time. Now u want to punish me for holding cvp? To lose even more from remains of my funds on fees? Is it a joke? Im punished enough already for buing this at 10$!
Market expect big unclocks after main net. 1 000 000 tokens soon will dump on LPs. Thats why price in free fall. We need vesting for them (and im not against vesting for LPs rewards) Why dont u speak about it?


This is a good proposal, but as @Gogano mentioned it would be a double punishment for BPT LPs.

I dont think this proposal can be implemented atm.

Re the part 1 - we offered to align the mined tokens distribution with Liquidity/Volumes earlier, but it wasnt implemented properly in my opinion.
At the same time CVP should be represented on Balancer. Atleast from the marketing stanpoint.

Re the part 2 - I would continue the discussion, but dont you think that if we take this kind of tough measures, it would be better to vest Alpha tokens? the effect on price would be much sizable

P.S. I am UNI LP btw

I agree that we need deep liquidity! so better to have only one pool. better to withdraw one time from balancer but to have more benefits in the futute

atleast the transition costs should be compensated in CVP.

*I am UNI LP

Why it will be a punishment? You will get all your retro rewards. It is very convinient to be in 95/5 pool and not risk anything. Very smart!

People like Sergey risk impermanent loss and should be rewarded for that. I personally am an LP in 50/50 Balancer pool and also risk a lot as Sergey. I will easily move my liquidity to Uniswap pool and it is ok to me

Yes you are right. holding CVp its not a risk at all). thanks)

1 Like

Man holding any coin including BTC and ETH is a risk. Are you first day in crypto?

Cmon, CVP risk is higher
this is a fact: Beta of CVP is much higher than Beta for BTC or ETH, and it was obvious before CVP was issued.
So based on numbers, holding 95% of CVP is riskier option than 50%

Though what I would agree with is that the final decision depends on an investor risk profile

1 Like

It was an allegory man. I meant that if you want to mine CVP it will be good to reward people who really want to support exchange process (Uniswap , 50/50 bal pool). Rewarding for just CVP holding (95/5 pool) is not efficient at all and not honest to other LPs (Uni, 50/50 pool)

hm… well, hard to argue, so your point is that the 95/5 pool is rather an artificial thing for those who boolish on the token, but wants to get liquidity ming reward as well, right?

Yes, and why they are rewarded with the same amount of tokens like LPs on Uniswap or 50/50 Balancer? not fair at all

well, this is cruel, but you are right.

Though strange that the CVP team didn’t pay attention to this from the very beginning

What done is done. team create this rules people invest by relying on this rules. They not responsible for that.
Moreover its proposal not solve any problems. only creating problems for specific individuals.
Idea that it somehow will pump the price or create much deeper liquidity is wrong.

Sorry, but it seems like joke when alpha testers votes for “some delays or other similar proposals for beta and gamma release schedules” LOL