@vbrpm Posting here on behalf of a large private group with enough ASTRO to possibly overturn the vote (at the current moment), with a leaning toward voting against. We wanted to open a dialogue as we believe there’s a lot of potential here, but we’d like to see either a revision to the proposal or stronger justification for these terms in order for us to vote to accept it.
Asking for basically 10% of annual emissions to be redirected toward this new pool seems unfavorable for the ASTRO protocol and hard to justify based on the following points:
SD rewards are significantly lower than proposed ASTRO rewards, when many protocols with farming incentives are paying out the lions share of the rewards with ASTRO as a supplemental boost. This proposal puts a bulk of the burden on ASTRO.
Current stats for Luna/LunaX pair are very weak: https://app.terraswap.io/pairs/terra1zrzy688j8g6446jzd88vzjzqtywh6xavww92hy.
With current stats, trading volumes would only generate about $200k in fees for ASTRO stakers, yet the proposal asks for $30m~$40m in annual emissions (and quite likely a lot more since we’re all bullish on ASTRO).
Take stLuna-Luna for comparison- pool size on Astro is significantly larger ($234m~ vs. $140m~) and generating roughly 3x the daily fees for xASTRO stakers, yet if this proposal passes the Luna-LunaX pool would be receiving 12%~ more in emissions than the stLuna-Luna pool.
As your proposal states, these metrics could likely change over time as SD rewards vest, but at present day it is difficult to justify the proposed emissions especially when the chasm is so large and significant growth is not necessarily guaranteed. It would be more reasonable to propose a smaller number and revise this as conditions become more positive down the road.
- Gauges have no ETA so these terms could be in place for a considerable length of time.
We are excited at the prospect of partnering with and investing in the Stader protocol, but our goal is to align with and protect the best interests of xASTRO stakeholders, and giving up such a large portion of emissions to this proposal sets a dangerous precedent especially since it would be the first to dilute the existing pool emissions. You would have our full support if you chose instead to revise this to a more justifiable percentage (say, 3~5%), and we’d be fully open to exploring future revisions as the Stader protocol matures.