This proposal is completely wrong. It uses pair contract addresses instead of LP tokens as well as rewrites all active pools with only two ones:
{"setup_pools":{"pools":[["terra1ygn5h8v8rm0v8y57j3mtu3mjr2ywu9utj6jch6e0ys2fc2pkyddqekwrew","10000"],["terra1hmm6wkt2uq973hpykg46rtae34y3maplyl8l9fhpm2vfftrew5uq5t6a0r","5000"]]}}
USK use cases arenât just limited to the present. There may be unforseen uses that may develop overtime. As a decentralized CDP algo stablecoin, that will be backed by native Cosmos assets, including possibly LUNA at some point, I for one would be for incentivizing USK liquidity on Astroport.
It is important for us to protect our sovereignty and bolster value within the network, but we should also be looking at generating value extrinsically and through network effects. Working in a coordinated way with similarly aligned app-chains provides a way to generate that value.
With new architecture coming out of Delphi, such as SLAMMs and Rovers from Mars, whose to say Kujira couldnât have satellite liquidation queues on different app-chains. Or at minimum, liquidation queues for Luna on Kujira. Itâs coming for DOT, I would imagine it is only a matter of time before it comes for Luna.
Whether or not to incentivize USK, isnât an easy question to answer. There would be pros and cons. But it is a nod to cooperation, networks effects, and I believe the larger vision of the Comos. Just my two cents
Thanks , @Dino . Iâve alerted this to the proposer. This is not their intention.
I have similar concerns regarding this proposal as I had regarding Erisâ and Prismâs proposals.
Imo the correct process for when a project requires deeper liquidity for a pool and demand/value to Astroport isnât obvious, should be to incentivize the pool initially themselves. Once demand is clear the project could petition the Astroport community to add dual rewards. If the project isnât able to incentivize the pool for whatever reason. The Astroport community could consider incentivizing the pool) with a small amount) to incentivize sufficient liquidity to establish, to gauge if thereâs sufficient demand to warrant further incentivization.
In this case:
As such I believe itâd be valuable to incentivize the axlUSDC-USK pool. However assigning 5000 alloc points ($584k worth of ASTRO per year), is too much for me to be comfortable with particularly since USKâs supply is half of the proposed incentives. In addition no dual rewards are offered, even though this benefits both projects. Due to the above I donât support this proposal in the current form.
Iâd suggest approaching it as follows:
PS. I do agree incentives for the axlUSDC-axlUSDT pool should be reduced. But thatâs a different topic
PS #2. as more stablecoins appear, weâll need to ensure liquidity doesnât get fragmented. Tri- and metapools could mitigate this issue.
Thanks, Sage.
Perhaps this will be a good time to revisit Astroport communityâs framework to decide what pool should be incentivised and what shouldnât be in this environment.
agreed, a framework is desired at this point to provide external projects clarity about the Astroport communityâs incentivization strategy.
This will ensure a smoother incentivization process
I agree with @MaxCallisto that the current ASTRO incentives to axlUSDT/axlUSDC are excessive, but the proposal to incentivize USK/axlUSDC is a non sequitur in relation to that issue.
As to the proposal itself, the criticisms of lack of Kujira-side incentives and value leakage by Astroport seem cogent to me and I will be voting no.
It seems to me that, as @Bitcoin_Sage suggested, there probably should be a big omnibus proposal or series of proposals to rebalance the level of ASTRO emissions across pools and socialize a rationale for setting emissionsâas a stopgap measure until a more Curve-style market-based solution to setting rewards can be implemented. This will also enable proposals like this one to be considered more closely with a revised level-set on ASTRO reward rates.
Is it possible create a Tri-pool on Astroport? 