Proposal to raise liquidity mining rewards for Liq. providers

Hello all,

I find current liquidity rewards not reflecting at all current situation on market (gas fees, price of the pumped token - we can end up with
tiny number of apr after 1 month lock up , other platforms apr )

Thats why a propose to raise APR. I got in mind that for new platform as opium good reward would be some multiply of more stabile platform apr - for example curve 3pool.

I propose to raise APR on all current pools and future to 10
x of Curve 3 pool rate.

Thus currently 16,7x 10 = 167% based on USD value at the expiration of contract.

Current apr is not at all reflecting risks associated with platform and market situation.

Thank you

Please vote and show support

8 Likes

I agree that it needs to be raised. If the goal is to actually reach 20,000,000 staked and locked for a month then the APR would have to be higher to compete with other liquidity mining programs.

1 Like

I think its all much complicated than that…
General idea is cool! And at first glance I like it alot (as a guy, with little money, who want to get good rewards as much as possible)
But. Just look on it from different perspective…
1) Whales
on the market there is maany whales with huuge amount of money. So, if opium pool will gives it participants BIG rewards (300% APR for example or 30% per month of staking), this immidiately will attract attention of these whales… because it in fact “easy money” with little risk involved.
And as a result - me and you (if you not a whale) stake ours “little money” and fill 1% of the total pool size, but all these whales fill another 99% of the pool…
Aaaand at the end these whales gather 99% of generous rewards. Aaaand … I think you pretty know what will be next.
2) Liquidity problem
Ask yourself - what IS actual purpose of these pools ?
The answer is - providing the supply for insurance products on platform so, that they are satisfy demand.
What we have now ?
Supply is MUCH more than demand.
So, I personally think in this purpose-context, the platform SHOULD rather cut! the rewards for LP’s. (yes you can blame me haha but this is pure logic…) aaand instead! Opium should incentivise DEMAND side!..

…
Ok…
Now lets talk about what we can do with that…

  1. Whales thing…
    I think we can (actually SHOULD!) introduce some kind of “bonding curve” for LP’s. Thats my thought.
    What thats mean …
    Its mean that peoples with LESS stake have more reward\stake coefficient than peoples with MORE stake.
    For example…
    if you stake 100$ you get 1 $OPIUM per 1$ staked.
    if you stake 1000$ you get 0.7 $OPIUM per 1$ staked.
    if you stake 10000$ you get 0.5 $OPIUM per 1$ staked.
    if you stake 100000$ you get 0.3 $OPIUM per 1$ staked.
    etc…

THis approach will make harder for whales to “frain” all the reward pool. And allow ordinal peoples to be profitable even with little stake.

2) Liquidity problem
so… as I describe above - as for now we actually dont have to attract more liquidity for supply side. And we should attract demand side.
How?..
I dont know haha )))
marketing and blablabla…
and $OPIUM rewards for demand side ofcourse… which is already descused in this thread :

2 Likes

well the issue is - you want to have spread the token to as much hands as possible - so higher apr will allow more people to ape-in.

Also the other problem is - market price drop - current apr- are calculated based on top price that was several days ago. And you are locking stables for month. This is not great.

Apr should be based in USD value.

Whales - if you present token lock - there is one - dr.opium - whales wont come in - because they are dumping tokens to have profit in short time.

So locks can help there.

Totally agree with that !

So if you invest 20k$ in the last lnsurance pool you get 40 opium and 50% locked ?? 40 opium at 20$ is 800$ and if the price drop to 10$ its 400$ and 200$ unlocked so just what to pay for gas ?

We are talking about a risky investment pool here. The pool covers and provides Tether insurance. Considering the Tether investigation situation as well, my opinion is that the rewards are totally indecent and detrimental to creating some traction for futures pools. Anyone who would obviously prefer to provide stable liquidity elsewhere simply because of the lower risk and the 2 to 3 times higher APR rates.

Dr. Opium is also a great genius distribution mechanism for attracting true holders so incentivizing the height of risk shouldn’t be a stability issue for the token economy.

Nb

2 Likes

I think we can try to add bonding curve for reward distribution first… and look how its working for 1 epoch .
If we (little bags) still get low APR on our stake’s then we can discuss to add volume in rewards… or other ideas…

thank you for your opinion. But no. This most be solved now - for most early participants-.there is no room for experiments with low APR. Users paid also tremendous gas fees some of them are not seeing them back.

sorry pal, but I disagree with “some of them are not seeing them back”
Bonding curve idea is EXACTLY what will gives these small bags more $OPIUM per 1$.
So, we can ask team to calculate this bottom level of curve so, that, for example, those who provide 500$ get $OPIUM which compensate gas cost at least (its around 2-5 $opium). I think it can be more or less predicted in calculation for the team.

Do you think all the whales will makes immediately 100000000 wallets and go to “attack” the pools ?
I dont thin so!
EVEN if they will DO it - its economically not worth it actually!!! they will spend huuuge amount in gas fees…
And, as I said above - I think not 100% of the whales will do that attack. They are too much lazy. and there is much more alternatives in the field for them.

1 Like

I actually really like the bonding curve idea it makes it worth it for smaller liquidity providers. The total Opium for the pool should be guaranteed rather than proportional to the amount staked.

With regards to incentivizing insurance takers I initially thought it didn’t make sense since that demand should be organic but the rewards can be tweaked to reach a certain pool utilization ratio. It can always be adjusted if the increased usage doesn’t generate enough in fees for the platform.

2 Likes

Hi There,

I just invested 10k USDC because I thought 40k Opuim will be shared (not 40k Opimium maximum).

Well it is my mistake anyways but it would be great to have better exciting distribution.

This is completely legit. We need to raise rewards to compensate for these things.

Thats great ideas guys, I personally would like to support better and more fair distribution!
What comes to my head after I read this thread:

  • It may be interesting to discriminate (via bonding curve etc) whales and average users, will do some calculations, so that marginal increase of liquidity is decreasing.
  • We should focus on the long term goal of the protocol, than it is large success, this is a goal and always be the goal
  • It should be decided by open market how many tokens is enough to provide liquidity, kind of the more people are already in the lower the distribution
1 Like

what are u even talking about "It should be decided by open market how many tokens is enough to provide liquidity, kind of the more people are already in the lower the distribution

"

People went in to pools when there was no APR known - or they thought that there would be 40 000 opium distributed to whole pool. Many people wrote this on chat.

LOL- u wrote that you will support rising rewards - not looking so .

This is waste of time here-

Yep,Agree with your ideas. Raising rewards is just a short-term method to increase TVL. High APY is unsustainable, it will lead to strong sell pressure. We need focus on the long-term. Bonding curve maybe a great implementation for distributing OPIUM

2 Likes

Maybe we could make a proposal to reduce the Charity fee. Besides,while risk is not on downside but also on upside. for now, 40 opium at $20 is $800,suppose double your reward to 80 while price dumps to $8, the USD value is $640, we should consider sell pressure once raising the rewards.

I completely agree. This has been brought up several times in the Discord channel as a major issue right now.

Those that are providing LP via 1inch are now under water with loss and that likely will get worse over time. Combined with gas fees the risk to reward ratio is horrible even when adding in the 1inch tokens and the expected “2-3 Opium” per $1k in LP which some folks are calculating.

1 Like

Thank you for your shitty rewards for early stakers - for majority of people not even enough to pay gas fees - lol :slight_smile: “best” liquidity mining - lol calculating APR on 20 usd. Soon this will be on 1 usd.

cheers!

1 Like

I agree 100%, with current price dumps, lot of LP are end up with loss at current reward rate.

Looking at current trading volume as for today, more than 60% are from 1inch with ETH-Opium pair. After this farming end, we will loss lot of volume because the rewards not very lucrative from previous pool.

With the farming near to an end and also current LP end up with Loss, we have to increase the rewards to attract more LP. When the demand for being LP increase, it will also increase the trading Volume and demand for this Opium token.

Seems like best place to talk about it without opening a new proposal but what’s going on with sushi lp rewards.
Have mentioned it in discord to no discussion and can’t find any mention of it in governance.

I would still like to understand the rational behind locking early LP’s and then allowing new LP’s a path to unlocked rewards.

Should it be assumed that more actions in future will be decided in a similar fashion?

Does it have to do with what Sushi allows? I’m not sure, but I thought I heard mention of that somewhere. It may have not been an Opium team decision?