Bi-Weekly MIN Farm Allocation [Week 1]

Hello all and welcome to the first Weekly MIN Farm Allocation post!

Today, we are posting the proposed Farm rebalancing following deep discussions held on Sunday within the Kitty Farmer Committee. Kitty Farmers voted on a new re-allocation with a great majority of 24/26 in favor of the new allocation to be presented below. We want the greater Minswap community to be informed of these changes, and add suggestions as well, and we definitely will value and consider feedback from everyone in this post below, so please weigh in!

Current Allocation of Points:

  • Lion Farm: MIN/ADA — 50 points.
  • Tiger Farms: PAVIA/ADA, LQ/ADA, MELD/ADA, WMT/ADA, DANA/ADA — 7 points.
  • Cat Farm: CNETA/ADA — 5.5 points.
  • Kitty Farms: AADA/ADA, CLAP/ADA, VYFI/ADA — 3 points.
  • Dog Farm: HOSKY/ADA — 0.5 points.

Proposed and passed Rebalance of Points:

  • Lion Farm: MIN/ADA — 52.069 points.

  • Tiger Farms:

    • DANA/ADA — 8 points
    • LQ/ADA, MELD/ADA, WMT/ADA — 7 points
    • PAVIA/ADA — 6 points
  • Cat Farm: CNETA/ADA — 5 points.

  • Kitty Farms: AADA/ADA, CLAP/ADA, VYFI/ADA — 2.5 points.

  • Dog Farm: HOSKY/ADA — 0.431 points.


Kitty farmers argued that the MIN/ADA pool should be prioritized in terms of APR, as it is the riskiest pool and we should look to reward the holders of Minswap’s governance token the most.

It was also discussed that the DANA allocation ought to be increased. Ardana aims to be a hub for all stablecoin trading. As such, just like we have seen with Curve on Ethereum, the native token DANA will play a very significant role in the Cardano DeFi ecosystem (please bear in mind Ardana is a stablepool DEX and as such there likely will not be DANA pool trading on it). Thus, Minswap aims to become the place where to best trade DANA, and we aim at scaling this DANA liquidity. Plus, the Ardana team and community have deposited a lot of trust in the Minswap DEX, by providing around 15mn worth of ADA in liquidity, making it the biggest non-MIN pool and 2x bigger than the third biggest pool. We feel the need to reward this trust, as it might encourage other projects to do the same as well.

To do this, it was agreed upon, to lower points from the PAVIA and CNETA pairs, as the group considered their APRs were pretty high for both these projects.

The group also considered lowering points in the Kitty Farms from 3 to 2.5, as those farms have very high APRs in comparison to others, and we are spending more MIN to attract liquidity to these pools than on others. Plus, there is an overall low trading volume for now in these pairs which we believe not to be organic and be driven mainly by the MIN Farming program. Thus, we rather reduce these points gradually and allocate it to the MIN farm.

Lastly, the group unanimously agreed to reduce the points in the HOSKY pool by 0.069 points to 0.431 points, arguing we should re-allocate more emisisons to the MIN pool gradually.

Course of Action

This new allocation will come into effect on [Redacted]. The aim is to rebalance the farms bi-weekly and have larger discussions within the Kitty Farmer Committee monthly.

We look forward to considering the feedback and thoughts from everyone, in the poll and comments below, with a view to the next weeks in terms of the points of the farms and the allocation methodology. We know this current method is flawed, in that it is very subjective. In the following weeks, we will work on methods to include quantivative data as well in the points of the farms, but for now, we think this rebalance makes sense.

In the following weeks, we will also use the Forum to discuss the opening of new farms and further incentive initiatives.

This is our first time doing this, so please contribute!

  • Cool, let’s move on with this new allocation
  • Let’s keep the older one/look at my comment below I have a better approach

0 voters


it’s a yay from me! Min needs to be boosted a bit and some pools need to be lowered a bit to support the min pool !

Now the icing on the cake would be if the LBE booster remains on for another couple of weeks. :grinning::grinning:


The increase in Dana rewards is arbitrary, at least as it has been argued for in the proposal, more is needed. On the face of it, there are many great projects worthy of attracting deep liquidity. Dana was also subject to the lower volume argument you articulate until a whale woke up and LPd a massive amount into the Dana-ADA pool just recently. In any case, the best place to trade ANY token will be the concomitant protocol. You have to assume that the protocols will make sure that maximum liquidity for their native token will exist on their platform. It is foolish to think that a permissionless decentralized dex will be able to compete with the native protocols from which the respective tokens disseminate, it is hard baked into the tokenomics of every whitepaper I have come across.

There is also a kind of Schrodinger’s Cat problem with using volume as an indicator for YF rewards AFTER those rewards have already been allocated, since those rewards incentivize buying and drive up volume. I personally think that rewards should be tied to volume but without the YF incentive distorting the price action and volume on YFable token pairs. Ideally, LPers should be rewarded for providing markets to quality projects as determined by the market takers purely based on the project’s fundamentals and not YF incentives. This is a conundrum of which I do not have a solution, except to make YFing blind in some way.

Similarly, I think SundaeSwap was onto something with their flat rewards rate across all pools, since this way the rewards incentive does not privilege one pool over another (disregarding all the non YFable pools of course, I’m just taking the Yfable pools as a sample) and thus distort the price and volume actions so much, at least amongst the Yield Farmable pools.

There is also the basic issue of accountability. How do we know that makers of this proposal, with the power they have to internally ascent and pass proposals unilaterally, do not have a conflict of interest?
Personal disclosure of biases in this regard would be healthy in my opinion.


Sure why not, and I do appreciate there are no huge changes implemented right from the start. So mostly seems reasonable to me but including a pointless 69 joke makes me question this whole “committee”. Hell, maybe I’m getting too old.

I like the new allocation all except for the cNETA. I actually believe cNETA is riding a wave of positive momentum right now, backed with the prospect of transferring stored Bitcoin value to Cardano. The health of the DEX in general would substantiate a bit higher allocation for cNETA as opposed to lower.


Also, do keep in mind that AnetaBTC is a partner…


I say we cut by 0.25 points from all across the board (except DANA) so MIN can get its increase but other pools aren’t negatively impacted too much. The CLAP tokens is new and I don’t think 1 week is long enough to adequately allow them to get some momentum. Hold off on these changes for at least 1 month to allow for volume to kick in and get good data analysis. Too soon.

1 Like

This is calvinball.

If you are just going to pick winners and losers by changing the rules mid game admit that is what you are doing and be clear about it.


I think this is just a bit too soon. Give it a month and then make these changes.


Changing the allocations so soon is crazy, you need more time to let the initial farming settle down. Come up with a review period say monthly or bi-weekly so you can make a more informed decision. Changing it so soon and if you start doing it often just turns this into a yield game not a serious DEX.

1 Like

Additionally this kind of “rebalancing” brings up conflicts of interest.

Any committee making recommendations like these should be transparent about the stakes they have in affected ventures.

1 Like

All, I created a proposal to see what support we have to delay this proposal. Please vote here Hold off on Week 1 Yield Farm Rebalancing

CLAP is new token and to decrease its share to 2.5 points isn’t just fare to token holders. Give it some time, the amount of transactions will rise and it will bring more fees to pool.



I voted to keep the old allocation, for now, for the following reason :

It could be selfish, but the CLAP/ADA pool is the only one I’m in, and I don’t want its rewards to be reduced.
But there is more.

I believe that these guys are working on what is probably one of the most meaningful projects ever created on the blockchain. More than that, I’m convinced that enabling them to do what they do should be the main reason why blockchain was even created in the first place.
They are literally building some tools that will allow us to take care of the world, and to look at our children with being (a little) less ashamed of what we have done with the planet we live on.

It triggers me a bit to see its pool loose 0,5 points, when Ardana gains one, and Pavia and Hosky looses so little.
The Impact Projects they are trying to launch should be everyone’s top priority in our decade, because without them, I believe that we won’t even be able to enjoy the other projects for long.

Ask all the people who suffer if they would prefer a Metaverse or some remote controlled motion detector, instead of a solution to their social and environmental issues.

Dear Commitee, you have a role to play in this, too.

If you either can provide a balance where Cardashift keeps its share, or if you can show me that the suggested one is the best for Minswap, and all of the projects on it, you will get my vote :+1:

Thank you for what you are doing :slight_smile:


If the goal is to create and maintain robust liquidity on Minswap, the small changes proposed by the team indicate that they believe their initial allocation was very close to ideal. This should be great news. However, I personally think that one week is not so much time and that leaving allocations alone temporarily would’ve also been acceptable until more data was available.

Along those lines, I wouldn’t mind seeing better rationale for how the points were chosen. Though TVL, APR, and Volume were mentioned, statements like “Ardana aims to be a hub for all stablecoin trading” and “DANA will play a significant role in the Cardano DeFi ecoystem” gives the impression that the decision-making process was not as data-driven as maybe it was. Nearly all of these projects aim to play a significant role in Cardano DeFi.

Lastly, I will invite the wrath of many by suggesting this but, please consider dropping HOSKY from yield farming. We are giving up valuable rewards to a meme instead of another worthwhile project.


I agree that one week is not enough time to make a desision about rebalancing.
Idealy, we don’t want to change the pools weight every weeks.
We should wait to have more data, then do a rebalancing.
I suggest waiting at least 3 weeks, ideally one month.

1 Like

Strongly agree with personal disclosures. Maybe we can see the wallet contents of the kitty farmers? (Thinking of a way to use blockchain tech to our advantage. We are trying to be different than the typical corrupt financial system yes?).

Would also like to see exactly how these numbers are being derived.

Also I don’t fully understand the DANA argument. Why not just increase the MIN pool even more? I’m wondering what I get as a MIN holder of giving more rewards to DANA holders.

Further, is there any plans to have some sort of voting scheme where we can be assured people are voting in the best interest of MIN? What is to stop someone from ex DANA coming in and voting to raise their rewards significantly?

Thank you


Two of the main goals for the re-allocation were evening out APRs after collecting practical data and still keep incentivizing liquidity for chosen projects. Even though those goals seem conflicting the new point allocation will do exactly that.

Kitty and Cat farms have been dominating yield farming APR since the beginning by a large margin compared to the lower rated Tiger farms. Gradually decreasing their points will even this out. A decrease of 0.5 points seems like a cautious and fair approach to accomplish that while still leaving them in a very good position.

Giving MIN a large portion of the remaining points is self-explanatory and makes total sense because of the imminent drop of NFT boosts. It will help to stabilize the platform’s token.
Incentivizing DANA is debatable, but the core of point systems like that is to pick and reward certain projects more than others. If the team agreed upon DANA after discussing it, it is most likely a sound decision in those early stages. Governance will make this process more transparent in the future.


This action would make every Wall Street bank and trading firm look moral and ethical. You cannot do this in good conscience. Any trading firm or trader who did something like this would be in jail for obvious insider trading violations.

If the people who run Minswap make this move they will do massive damage to the Cardano ecosystem. Minswap Ownership right now is the front face of Ada and this will make the Cardano Network look like a bunch of corrupt insiders that trade unethically and crush small investors who are not on the inside.

This is currently the largest dex and influence in the market and we are seeing the trading platform pick winners and losers. They are doing it without disclosing positions that they hold and they are doing it with a 2 day notice.

That is transparently insider trading and completely absurd.