[Closed] Should MTA rewards be added to Curve's new Meta Pool?

Summary :

Add MTA rewards to upcoming Curve “Meta Pool.”

Abstract :

Proposed by Derek Silva as a result of successful community proposal on Curve Finance’s forum (created by mStable team member Alex Scott) and a successful Curve community vote approving CIP #21.

Curve is in the process of adding an mUSD “Meta Pool” to their platform that would see equal parts mUSD & 3Pool[USDT, USDC, and DAI] deposited with CRV rewards for liquidity providers, launching 15 October 2020 assuming a positive vote by Curve Finance’s DAO.

This pool could act as a major source of trading volume for mUSD given that it benefits from StableSwap [PDF] design and the existing liquidity in the 3pool.

This discussion is focused on adding further incentives to the pool with MTA rewards along side the potential CRV rewards, along with how much MTA to emit from the pool on a weekly basis if you feel MTA should be added as a reward.

Motivation :

This pool could act as a major source of trading volume for mUSD given that it benefits from StableSwap [PDF] design and the existing liquidity in the 3pool. This would also serve as the only Curve “Meta Pool” with multiple rewards.

Poll:

Due to the urgency of this discussion, a poll has already been created for those ready to vote. The poll closes on 14 October 2020 at 10:00 UTC.

1 Like

Let me check three things plz

  1. Where will the compensation be paid from in the distribution plan?
    https://medium.com/mstable/introducing-meta-mta-mstables-protocol-token-6e1032291ccf

  2. How to earn rewards? from depositing crvmUSD?

  3. Is the MTA’s compensation rate an option, for example, to start out at 5000 and revise it weekly?

I’m also concerned about the musd/eth liquidity of uniswap.
It’s not part of this proposal, but it’s far more important than the mta5/musd95 BalancerPool.

This pool would be excellent for mUSD on/offboarding in the DeFi ecosystem. Curve is a super efficient and gas-minimized platform for trading stablecoins. The automated market maker curve is much more suitable on Curve than Balancer, where our users suffer much worse slippage for mUSD/USDC trades (pool currently incentivized on mStable EARN). This pool might have high trading activity and high yield for liquidity providers. . Integration with the 3Pool also means users can trade for mUSD with DAI and USDT as well as USDC.

It might make sense for mStable to heavily incentivize this Curve mUSD metapool at a rate of 20K MTA/week. Emission can be higher than the current 10K MTA/week subsidy for the mUSD/USDC pool on Balancer to reflect the enhanced usefulness of this liquidity on Curve.

Community concerns regarding the additional MTA emissions should consider this allocation can be taken from the 20K MTA/week available from closing the 95/5 MTA/mUSD Balancer pool. MTA emissions can also be reduced by closing the mUSD/USDC Balancer pool (10K MTA/rewards) if liquidity successfully shifts toward Curve. BAL rewards for the mUSD/USDC 50/50 pool are currently only ~6.5%/year.

4 Likes

I agree with chuckle17.
Bal rewards are attractive, but we should shift to rewards on Uniswap and Curve, which have higher trading volumes.

1 Like

Come on guys, let’s stop being so greedy, we need to allocate at least 5,000 MTA to the Curve Finance pool in order to incentivize users to provide it with more liquidity. This is vital for the long term sustainability of the project. I urge everybody who is voting to please think carefully about your decisions because the long term viability of this project depends on it. Don’t be penny wise but pound foolish. It will be much better for the ecosystem as a whole if we can sacrifice short term gains now for long term success. And please remember, additional rewards are likely to be allocated to stakers regardless of the outcome of this vote, so please don’t assume that this would not be the case if the Curve MTA pool was to start receiving MTA rewards.

  1. From the 30% of MTA that has been allocated to ecosystem rewards
  2. One would deposit their LP token (https://etherscan.io/token/0x1AEf73d49Dedc4b1778d0706583995958Dc862e6) in to Curves LiquidityGauge contract
  3. Yes theoretically there could be consensus for changes in the future

I agree that the uniswap liquidity is more important than the 95/5 on Balancer. IMO we should be tapering down these rewards from the 95/5 pool and simply not re-assigning them.

This pool would be excellent for mUSD on/offboarding in the DeFi ecosystem. Curve is a super efficient and gas-minimized platform for trading stablecoins. The automated market maker curve is much more suitable on Curve than Balancer, where our users suffer much worse slippage for mUSD/USDC trades (pool currently incentivized on mStable EARN). This pool might have high trading activity and high yield for liquidity providers. . Integration with the 3Pool also means users can trade for mUSD with DAI and USDT as well as USDC.

^ This is on point. It’s a no brainer IMO that we should incentivise this pool… the benefits to on/off ramps is unparalleled.

It might make sense for mStable to heavily incentivize this Curve mUSD metapool at a rate of 20K MTA/week. Emission can be higher than the current 10K MTA/week subsidy for the mUSD/USDC pool on Balancer to reflect the enhanced usefulness of this liquidity on Curve.

Completely agree.

Community concerns regarding the additional MTA emissions should consider this allocation can be taken from the 20K MTA/week available from closing the 95/5 MTA/mUSD Balancer pool.

Not completely agreeing on this one. The 20k from the 95/5 MTA/mUSD pool should likely be reassigned to MTA based pools or staking. IMO we should be simply winding down the 95/5 MUSD/MTA pool and not re-assigning the rewards… because that pool is not providing much utility at the moment in terms of on/off ramps… it’s simply a low risk place to store mUSD. Wydt Chuckle?

To add some data to my previous points about why this is good for on/off ramps for mUSD… let’s take a look at how one might purchase mUSD on the market.

Currently the only option is Balancer… with the USDC <> mUSD pool being the most liquid. Even with over 30x the liquidity of the current Curve pool, it still provides 3x worse slippage.

Option 1: Balancer
Pool liquidity: 11m
Swap 50k mUSD > USDC: 49499 (-501)
Swap 50k USDC > mUSD: 49734 (-266)
Total slip: 767 (0.7%)

Option 2: Curve
Total liquidity: 310k
Swap 50k mUSD > USDC: 50001 (+1)
Swap 50k USDC > mUSD: 49761.57 (-240)
Total slip: 241 (0.24%)

While I think that it’s good to have the dual liquidity on Balancer and Curve, I think that the mUSD/MTA 95/5 pool is providing much less utility than the USDC/mUSD pool and we should simply remove that pool from EARN and move all the rewards to the Meta Pool.

2 Likes

Thanks for the reply.
I understand that there is a possibility to cut mta5 / musd95 and that the total inflation rate could be held constant.
(Depends on future governance.)

I voted for 20,000.
Curve user will increase the PoolSize until the APY reaches a certain value.

If the 0MTA is about to be adopted or if something changes, I will change my vote before the end.

Its an obvious win for me - @alsco77 and @chuckle17 have done a comprehensive job of covering the benefits this would bring to mStable. My vote is for 20k MTA being allocated to this new Curve “Meta” pool.

1 Like

I think here we’re facing the same issue as before again. We’re asking 2 questions in one poll, resulting in a deluded result.

First, we should ask if the pool should be rewarded, as this is already grounds enough for a debate.

Only after should we decide on an actual figure. A vote like this makes it look like the pool will drain away from our allocation, rather than tackling the issue at hand.

To illustrate my point, 52% are currently in favor of no reward being added, while the rest of the votes fights over how much of a reward.

Just my 2cts :wink:

3 Likes

5k now…20k maybe later

Yes, we were aware of this issue when creating the proposal - probably landed on the wrong structure here. The ideal would be snapshot allowing “nested” voting where a yes vote sequentially allows voting on consequential proposals.

We’ll stick to the yes/no top line vote with follow on proposals in future

2 Likes

I think this issue was mainly caused by the current time constraints which exist between proposal and implementation. Hence the ‘double layered’ question poll approach.

Ultimately however, and given the latest poll results, I strongly urge the community to vote in favour of 10k allocation with a view to increase rewards if necessary at some point in the future. It is absolutely vital that we get this across the line in order to incentivize more wide scale adoption of mUSD and the subsequent long term success of this project.

2 Likes

As scarceJim said, that’s certainly the ideal. At this point a vote of 0 is effectively the same as “no,” whereas the others can be considered a “yes” vote. Additionally, you can change your vote at any time prior to the poll closing on Wednesday, so at least people do have time to think, debate, and even change their minds prior to the poll closing.

We will do better next time. :slight_smile:

The Curve pool has an amplification coefficient of 200 - which means that it’s 200 times more effective than Balancer or Uniswap pools. Currently it has 300k of liquidity there - that’s the equivalent of having 60M of liquidity in Balancer or Uniswap.

3 Likes

Hey guys, Charlie from the Curve team here. Excited to get this hopefully incentivised pool going.

The gauge also means CRV rewards so MTA + CRV rewards could make for a very very attractive pool.

6 Likes

The vote is still ultimately in favour of MTA allocation so no need to worry imo. And the 10k allocation seems to be the preferable amount.