Curious why do you think IL has increased risk in these pools? IL is really just opportunity cost. Your largest risk when LPing is the price risk of both tokens. Since both tokens have surged, that price risk worked out for you. Sure you would have been better off hodling not LPing, but you are still better off than if you didn’t swap into those assets to LP? Just curious why you see increased price risk?
Unless it’s just lower emissions would cause LP’ers to leave which would lower depth of the pool which could cause higher slippage?
While I do agree with most of your points, the disclosure part I still feel needs something. For example, in the peer reviewed literature world that I am more familiar with, it is paramount that parties disclose their conflict of interests. It would be considered fraud not to do so. I don’t see a reason why this shouldn’t be the case here. Amounts yes that is too much information. But for example, “Lunch holds DANA”, “Lunch is a moderator for MELD”, “Lunch is a consultant for WMT”. Something along those lines. Everything I have seen so far leads me to think I can trust the Kitty Farmers and the Devs. However, the Kitty Farmers can change, circumstances can change, and I think in the spirit of cryptocurrency in general we should work towards developing a robust and transparent system.
It would be better to make these adjustments with a noted agreement of not adjusting ones knocked down for the next adjustment period (as if they are safe the next round), or something like that. Also cNETA is a partner to the DEX, so knocking it down the first round feels dirty to me. I agree that keeping the value of MIN up with higher APR helps all pools, so there is that to consider for everyone. If adjustments are to happen too frequently I think it will do more damage than good for the MINswap farmers, but this adjustment is minor, so fair enough.
I think there is a way to incorporate statistics of the current LPs, like Volume (maybe 7d ADV) and TVL in a formulaic way to determine MIN emissions. We can even blend the formula with the previous periods MIN emission percentages to smooth the period of period changes. LP types (lion, tiger, etc) can be bounded with minimum and maximum percentages so nothing is too ridiculous, and these types of parameters can eventually be set by a DAO.
I think this approach will not only satisfy the community that there is no chance of bias, but will also eventually allow for some sort of equilibrium where TVL flows to the appropriate pools.
I have the formula coded already . This is just version 1, will be chatting with some folks and showing it to them and then we will write it up more formally. Hopefully this idea will help ease everyone’s concerns around changing emissions. Emissions should change, but we can do it in a systematic way that is parameterized by the community!
Just a couple thoughts after having been ruminating on your beautiful spreadsheets for a few days.
Do you have available to you the number of wallets/users staking tokens in each yield farm? I am wondering if instead of relying heavily on TVL and Volume when determining YF allocations, if it would be beneficial to try and also steer pools away from being too whale-heavy.
High TVL and high volume is great, but if the majority of your liquidity is being provided by a couple of whales, that is not as good as if the majority is provided by smaller investors. In the former case, one whale removing liquidity could destroy the pool. In the latter, any number of liquidity providers exiting their positions would have a much less noticeable impact on the pool.
Using TVL/# LP providers (or TVL/# yield farmers) might give you good some insight into this. I’d probably couple that with a standard deviation measurement as well to see how the pool is distributed, too. Just some food for thought.
How ada min is the riskier pool When th IL is very less there.
?
I don’t get the point! What I suggest is 45% for min and increase other pools to increase liquidity.
I don’t think Dana/Ada pair should get an increase if it is true that Dana got 20million ada worth of LP tokens early and waited a few days for people to get into the pool for the high APR then staked the LP tokens which took the APR from 160% down to 67%. The delay in them staking the LP tokens seems calculated and I don’t think they should be awarded with a higher allocation % with that sort of behavior.
You do not have secret back room discussions picking winners and losers on short notice.
The price effects on multiple tokens were immediate and predictable. It would be too easy for the committee members to make trades that benefited.
Additionally the committee made changes to the allocations that benefited the Ardana pool right before the largest investor on the platform moved into that pool. The appearance of impropriety is clear.
These kinds of activities undermine the confidence of people outside the sphere of influence.
In a few months there will be other options to participate in liquidity pools. If Minswap acts in this manner people will not trust it. It will fade as other dexes that are operated with more integrity and consistency and transparency with all other benefits the same offer the exact same product.
I don’t like the approach you are taking with the Lion Farm. You’re looking at the APRs and increasing/decreasing the points based on it. I think that all pairs in a category of a farm (Lion, Tiger, Cat, etc.) should be treated equally.
The market corrects itself based on the APRs. The APRs for Pavia and CNETA are probably higher right now because folks are more afraid for impermanent loss, and thus there is less liquidity. If you reduce the points, you’ll probably see a lot of TVL lost from those pairs. Each token has different risks associated with it, and thus the APR will always be different. You shouldn’t aim for everyone in the same category of farm to have the same APR.
If you want to call out a pair such as DANA because it is more strategic and give it more points, create a new category such as “Panther” and give it a different set of points. If you need to offset the points you are increasing for DANA, you should take it from all Tiger farms.
. This is just version 1, will be chatting with some folks and showing it to them and then we will write it up more formally. Hopefully this idea will help ease everyone’s concerns around changing emissions. Emissions should change, but we can do it in a systematic way that is parameterized by the community!