The 25% cap was not a good idea because with it, it takes a really long time to phase out rewards for pools that clearly underperform in terms of generated fees. It also prevents new pools (that may generate more fees) from receiving emissions (because emissions are still given to underperforming pools).
1 Like
I understand the onus is on the community to participate in the forums but to be fair, the first version of this proposal (that you referred to) had genuine community engagement and diverse discussion. in comparison, the most recent update slipped past many members radar, as you can see there were very few participants other than you (3, and one stands to gain considerably from the proposed result) and few posts.
The devs are pushing this through, as you can see by their votes on chain, even before seeing the way the community votes.
1 Like
While the vote on chain does not have any execution message , I do want to implore the large Astro holders that removing over 90% of most community LSDs will alienate Astroport. Although the math makes sense, Astroport may stand to lose many of the builders like Eris and Backbone Labs that invested time and effort behind the scenes to build up utility. I agree that incentives should be reduced, but this change is too drastic, and it favours LSDs like Stader and Stride that has printed tokens.
Any further votes in the future, should consider whether Astroport only supports LSDs that prints its own tokens or one that has strategic and community value in the ecosystem that Astroport belongs to.
This is my POV, but in the end of the day, it is the decision of the large ASTRO holders.
6 Likes
Supper happy that so many people are engaging in the governance process! A very healthy sign for a decentralized protocol.
But removing ASTRO incentives from non-revenue pools really shouldnât be controversial. Does Osmosis give huge amounts of incentives to non-revenue pools? Does Kujira? Does Injective? No. So why should Astroport?
The Astral Assembly has to do whatâs best for Astroport, and subsidizing non-revenue pools no longer makes sense. New features have been built that allow Astroport to go cross-chain, so now incentives have to be freed up to support Astroport pools on Injective and elsewhere. This is a super positive development for Astroport and ASTRO holders!
If anyone reading this wants non-revenue pools to continue receiving incentives, why not ask for LUNA from the Terra community pool? The Terra community has like $600M worth of LUNA. If there are teams building for the good of the Terra ecosystem, it makes more sense for the Terra community to subsidize them than the Astral Assembly.
@John_Galt please add | STRIDE to your name to make your conflict of interest clear. (At least to your user info.)
This is bad for Terra as an ecosystem, and will place Astroport at a disadvantage to LSD focused DEXes. I think we can agree that LSDs are the future of DeFi in cosmos, but this will only benefit Stride.
@stefan I also urge you again to provide the data for fee generation calculation, as my data shows constant higher usage of ampLUNA-LUNA pool compared to LunaX-LUNA. I also still think that single sided entries into the stableswap pools are not included in the data. With our zap feature, our frontend essentially pushes users to use single sided entries. If trading fee generation is the only metric we are looking at, then the data must be airtight, correct and transparent (open source). We should also think about raising trading fees on stableswap pools to the same price as XYK pools or multiply the generated fees by 6 to remove the disadvantage.
ERIS as a protocol provides a lot more trading fee generation through our other products, so a strategic partnership makes sense in that way. We are very thankful for all the support we have received from the Astroport community over the last 6-9 months, and we will not take any actions to move that trading volume away from Astroport, but this change seems like a sudden action, by non-community decisions influenced by lobbying.
Disclaimer: I am a contributor to ERIS protocol, which is getting heavily cut and I personally hold more value in LUNA than in ASTRO.
5 Likes
This ARC is not on-chain so nothing is pushed through with it
Iâm referring to ARC-40, which is on chain currently and has implications which have been discussed here above. Specifically the elimination of the 25% max change per time period. Which is relevant when discussing how we âupdate astro emissions per blockâ - this ARC-42. They are intimately connected.
1 Like
If you want to discuss about that proposal, post a comment in there.
As for the logic of removing the cap, ARC-40 mentions: âIn order to allocate emissions efficiently and allow governance to make decisions more rapidly as well as adapt to changing market conditionsâ
1 Like
Well said sir. I want to add that the point you made on twitter was also good that Astroport should seek to incentivize Luna lsdâs to align itself with the overall mission of Terra 2.0: alliance, feather,etcâŚ
As a community we were all wrecked. I appreciated that Astroport stood on Terra but there was big incentive given to Astroport to stay by the Terra community fund.
It does feel a bit like Astroport is turning its back on Terra now. I suggest Astral assembly Let the incentives go for another 8-10 weeks or so until Dexter is up and we have alternative to keep liquidity in community lsds.
4 Likes
I agree with all Max has said as well. Removing such a large amount of incentives at once does not align with what was originally voted on (25%). I do think the 25% reduction cap could have been increased even up to 50%, but not done away with entirely. Do I think we have too many LSDs? Yes. Do I think we are incentivizing them more than they deserve? Yes. Do I think that is warranted to continue short-term? Yes.
In order for an LSD to justify its worth and thus continue to receive ASTRO allocations, it will need some sort of utility to drive demand and fees beyond just holding them. However, to build utility on top of LSDs you need to have liquidity there first. We know teams are building, so rather than cut off their chances entirely, they should instead be given deadlines. Let ASTRO incentives trickle down to nothing if they donât deliver fees to Astroport. If Astroport decides to cut off incentives entirely now, then other DEXs and solutions will pop up to soak up the liquidity instead, or projects will fail and never bring more value down the road. This is a short-term investment in the chain Astroport is built on, for the betterment of the ecosystem that Astroport will thrive within, not unlike the large investment Terra made in Astroport development at genesis. Once other protocols do build something successful utilizing some of the LSDs, Astroport should be the one soaking up the fee revenue, not a competitor. After this period of time where incentives are decreasing, some LSDs might fail, but the others will succeed in their own value creation.
LSDs stand to become quite a large backbone in Terraâs DeFi and the value driver will not just be what is built to provide utility to them, but what is built on top of that, and on top of that. Foundations should be supported for what will grow on top and thus bring value to Astroport on Terra long-term.
Disclaimer: I am a community moderator for both Terra and Astroport and my opinion is my own.
7 Likes
Agreed with the idea that the original 25% every 8 weeks takes too much time and some incentives should be cut-off now (ie USDC/USDT, VKR). On the other hand it now looks like we are following Strideâs agenda and not Astroportâs.
I donât think whatâs best for Astroport is to eradicate all emissions to Luna LSDs. As said by other members, Luna LSDs have a huge role to play in the context of Alliance. Terra heavily invested in Astroport on the launch of the phoenix chain, giving time to Luna LSDs to developp is just fair game and can benefit Astroport in the long run. Cutting off almost 100% of incentives to these pools would eliminate Astroport from the Luna LSDs incoming wars as they would move to other DEXs (see Dexter).
Also would appreciate if Stride would stop pushing their own agenda in these discussions without appropriate disclaimers.
2 Likes
This would be a great disappointment. I have exclusively LUNA LPâs, now I see that I have to find a new solution. Too bad that the LUNA LP holders are not welcome at astro. It shows you that the rewards are massively cut. It was a big step to the competition until now, but now it will be a huge step backwards. Why are you destroying yourselves? This is just my opinion.
1 Like
Iâve been around Terra/Astroport for a while and while I did find the initial version of this proposal sketchy, I appreciate the update and the new table.
Now, on the new issue. You guys complained about not adhering to the incentives framework. Now you yourself refuse to adhere because you wonât get more free money than the protocol should give out. Make up your minds.
No protocol is forced to âalignâ with the mission of the chain where theyâre deployed. Theyâre free to do whatever they think is best for their own survival.
Moreover, I canât believe most people still think TVL is a relevant metric these days. If a pool has tokens that donât produce fees, the AMM DOES NOT need to keep the token/project alive. Move and keep it going yourself. If you canât, then the project/token should fade into irrelevance like any other failed startup does in the normal world.
1 Like
You guys complained about not adhering to the incentives framework. Now you yourself refuse to adhere because you wonât get more free money than the protocol should give out.
Not saying we should or not but this new prop doesnât adhere to the framework either.
No protocol is forced to âalignâ with the mission of the chain where theyâre deployed. Theyâre free to do whatever they think is best for their own survival.
Who said Astroport is forced to do anything? Im just seeing people sharing their opinion about whatâs good or not for Astroport.
1 Like
Assuming ARC-40 passes (and I think it should), this proposal (in its latest form) will adhere just fine.
I think it was a massive mistake on the part of Astroport contributors to cap the % change in emissions in the first version of the framework. They invited the mob to complain that they wonât get more free money while sitting on their butts. That cap on emission changes was similar to regulation that favors current market winners which is why most people here moan that their favorite token farm will shrink.
When youâre [insert name of massive company/entity in a particular sector], you cheer when the government regulates the industry youâre in because you already have the funds and/or position to benefit from that regulation (via less competition). That % cap was unfair âregulationâ to new entrants in the LSD market because it would take way too long for new pools to get a fair amount of ASTRO (according to the 0.1 fee:emission ratio).
If current LSDs want to remain competitive, they should move their butts to dual incentivize their pools or if they already do, incentivize more and/or hurry up to make their tokens useful besides allowing their tokenholders to sit and wait for the heat death of the universe.
P.S This guy literally says that Astroport should âseekâ to align itself with Terra which makes absolutely no sense. The Astroport community should do only whatâs good for Astroport the protocol and if that means cutting emissions from pools that barely give back anything, so be it.
2 Likes
Ps this guy said because Astroport got huge allocation from the Terra emergency fund last year. Asking Astral assembly to support the community that help fund it makes sense. Iâm $astro holder; I farm Astro& will continue to farm astro.
Iâm simply saying cutting off incentiveâs immediately is a bit much.a phase out over the next few months would be better.
Especially when you and others are going around asking for incentives for Stluna. Is that going to magically have volume to sustain incentives?
If you actually go and read Strideâs proposal, youâll see that the Stride team BUYS ASTRO in order to stake it for xASTRO and then they wanna use that xASTRO as dual rewards. They do not ask for an ASTRO generator.
Iâm not gonna say no to a team giving out free ASTRO without a generator
3 Likes
Technically, they kept it vague, saying, âThe Stride DAO will acquire xASTROâŚâ so they still may need to buy it (market/otc) or it may already be bought, sitting in a wallet. Not sure on that point
2 Likes
LSD farms at Astroport are very popular, you get much higher rewards than staking and also the flexibility of staying liquid. In a way to get to have the cake and eat it.
As someone who has been LPing all of the LSD farms it will be hard to see the incentives removed, but as xAstro holder I also fully understand the reasoning behind this proposal. As it stands the LSD pools bring very little value to the protocol.
BTW, by when can we expect to see the proposal on chain? At the description it says after one week of discussions, but that was two weeks ago.
Hereâs the volume data used for this proposal:
Single sided entries werenât included but preliminary data shows that on aggregate, there was negligible ampLUNA provided this way. On the attached chart you can see aggregate single sided liquidity provision where teal â USDC, blue â USDT, purple â LunaX and orange â ampLUNA:
