The BALN/bnUSD pool has 2x the participants and half the volume of BALN/sICX, so it looks to me that there are too many people doing LP but relatively little interest from traders. This is probably due to the BALN allocation being too high for BALN/bnUSD. Since we do not need so much liquidity for BALN/bnUSD, I think it would make sense to move most of the reward allocation to BALN/sICX and maybe other pools as well.
Good move until sICX rises and creates opp for bnusd liquidity from loans? To increase baln value, feels like incentivizing baln pairs is the play. May be good over short term…
At some point, most likely after BTP is up and running. Worker tokens are going to be needed/used to up the APY on the pools to incentivise liquidity onto ICON/Balanced.
The liquidity isn’t going to come ICON/Balanced unless APY is competitive.
I don’t know if it would be better. I suggested the 50% drop because BALN/bnUSD has half the volume of BALN/sICX, and because I don’t see too much value in that pool especially with transaction routing now. Seems like there are just too many participants farming BALN on that pool, and it’s not used much.
Closing
We are buying Quadruple the amount of the liquidity that is double in price to a perfectly valid pair. We can buy a little less, of the expensive one, and more of the cheap one. Drastically increase BALN-sICX rewards - #21 by arch
As a general proponent that BALN:bnUSD is very inefficient I support this proposal, and continue to stand by all the points I made in that post, and indeed in that thread.
If there is one slight alteration I think, I don’t feel sICX/ICX needs a boost, as that queue doesn’t give a better trading experience with more TVL. At the present the pool hasn’t really emptied afaik, even through heavy volatility.
I think publicising that that pool receives (I believe to be 0.7%) upon conversion will enough to continue to incentivise people to supply to that pair. But other than that, or even with current parameters looks good to me.
I personally think long term aiming to have BALN:bnUSD traded primarily via BALN:sICX and sICX:bnUSD to be a better goal. Either having no BALN:bnUSD incentive at all or just a small amount to give traders tading in small amounts a better slippage on that pair to be ideal.
sICX/ICX: 6%
Do we need to increase this? Is the liquidity level low? With the .7% fee realized at fulfillment, isn’t this pool already quite lucrative for the risk involved?
Instead, could we bump up the rewards for IUSDC/bnUSD?
Really glad to see the community coming together to aggregate feedback and form a proposal. I wish I got my feedback in here in time, will make sure to reply faster going forward!
I totally agree with the direction tbh, but I do think it’s a bit too much too quick from the BALN/bnUSD pool. I agree with all arguments stated, but want to try doing more gradual change. The governance system of changing BALN allocations is clunky, no doubt about it, but I believe gradual change is important to allow people to notice changes and start acting accordingly, rather than almost being “shocked” into action.
What I’d like to see happen would be something like the below. Let me know your feedback, and perhaps we can come together for a more “balanced” proposal later this week. As for BIP14, I’m going to gauge community feedback on the existing proposal before making any decision on my vote.