I had a question about this regarding the wBTC / ETH Sushi LP. It does have a rather low APY right now. However, there may be arguments that the value of this vault is more intrinsic to the pairs and the APY would only go up a small percentage for a significant increase in Badger.
Did I guess right? Someone let me know, or steer me correctly otherwise.
@BadgerBob they have to incentivize providing real liquidity. I had the same opinion since I’m particular to these kinds of mechanisms, and loved FARM’s version, but it makes sense when you think about it.
@Spadaboom I voted yes, I like that all 3 LP’s get the same amount. But, why not leave the total emissions alone (lower the amounts given to the LPs from your proposal) and work to drive up the price of Badger a bit?
This has been already addressed. The people providing liquidity in both Badger/wBTC staking pool add more value and take more risk that people just staking Badger. The larger emission compensates a bit this additional risk. This is why I believe that the proposal is well balanced, Badger only stakers are still rewarded generously.
I am currently participating in different Setts including the Badger only one, the Harvest, the Uni pool and the Sushi pools. If I would earn more Badger just staking it and not providing liquidity, I would definitely move my Badger/wBTC liquidity pool holdings to Badger only. Thus reducing the liquidity of Badger in the market, which would go against of the community interests.
Looks good for this week. One of the problems yearn had and harvest learned from was not having tokens to emit after a while. Our project seems well launched, and once we have DIGG we can emit that as well. I’d propose for week 6 we try limiting total emissions to 350k badger in total and consider reducing that further in week 7, any leftover emissions from the liquidity mining period can/should be used to extend liquidity mining before having to touch community funds.
I’m really not a great finance mind, so I pulled 350k out of thin air(about 50% of this week). The point is we should start drastically reducing badger emissions. 15% on a crv pool and 300-400% APY on an LP is still quite competitive and more in line with other legitimate defi projects, which we are starting to become. We also have DIGG to add in to sweeten the load, but we should stop handing out LP tokens like they’re going out of fashion.
This is right for the most of the part, but let’s not forget that there are people who are buying badger and staking it in the badger sett. This is the only way for small bags holders to get in Badger DAO (or to increase their sett shares), especially with present gas prices. These people are risking may be even more than badger/wbtc LPs, so may be badger sett rewards should be at least equal to the 3 btc setts and the super sett.
I have seen a lot of replies indicating that sushi and other pools should have more because they are taking risks; however, many fail to mention that their rewards are also being double dipped because they are receiving badger and sushi already. why should we have to incentivize the incentive? Secondly, sure we can move to the new pools but many of us who have been here the longest and rolled with the project from the start would lose the multiplier that we have earned by being loyal even when the price dived of a cliff before. we stayed here.
he has a point here. I’ve thought about moving some of my badgers from badger sett to sushi pool, but then I’d lose my multiplier. If anything, BADGER pools should receive EQUAL rewards with all the other pools. Not more, not less.
Orr. maybe somehow carry over multipliers between setts? Is that even feasible? Hmm. i wonder how that would affect the ecosystem.
I’m happy with my BADGER sett rewards, but some people seem to not be. I think making it equal would be a good compromise, if anything.
@Spadaboom - glad to see that wBTC sett provisions are being maintained but can you address why LP provision is being increased (if I’m reading this right) given that it has clearly already been shown to be enough to attract the TVL and provide liquidity? I can’t see any explanation for that in your original post.
We are incentivising two pools of the same pair including one, in the SLP pair, that already receives Sushi rewards on top. This seems profligate to me