[Discussion] Proposal to create a structured and logical Balancer+MTA rewards program

Since markets are headed lower at this moment, lets look at at $0.60 mta price…

Assume $0.60 MTA price and $1m liquidity in the pool…

4x25% Pool:
BAL_APY = 36%
Rewards: (5000MTA/wk rewards = $3000/wk… /$1m liquidity == 0.30%/wk === 15.6% APY)
Total APY: 52.6% + feeAPY

95:5% Pool:
BAL_APY = 5%
Rewards: (10000MTA/wk rewards = $6000/wk… /$1m liquidity == 0.60%/wk === 31.2% APY)
Total APY: 36.2% + feeAPY

It is a comprehensive solution but we have to get the vote going and turn it around.

If I stake at 100% apy and price cuts in half each year, no good. I would rather LP in a way that makes sense in this environment.

And yeah I know LP loses on price cut in half too, but we can control losses better.

This whole thing is kind of a check and balance system for LP vs Staker on balancer.

LP has to trust stakers (voters) to make good pool options with logically predictable effects.

Staker has to trust LP to utilize the pools to maintain and grow $$$ VALUE of their stakings.

Speculators gonna speculate

Completely agree - 5/95 should be removed pronto. The 25-25-25-25 BAL pool also seems like a good idea to me. To prevent clogging though, let’s move with the one that has almost unanimous consensus - removing the 5/95 pool. We should move at least that to vote stat. I will vote for it.

1 Like

I still stand by this proposal as a 1 Poll proposal, 1 vote:


  1. End 15k rewards on current 5:95 and leave the ~$3.8m EarnPool liquidity in the pool (where it currently already is)

If so…

2a. Add 5k/wk rewards to the new 25:25:25:25 pool (address in proposal)
2b. Add 10k/wk rewards to the new 95:5 pool (address in proposal)
2c. Commit to this as a temporary 13 week program with the intent of review after 13 weeks


  • Obviously, if #1 fails, the other 3 are off the table.
  • The other 3 are the "13 Week Structured & Logical Balancer+MTA Rewards Program"
  • All 3 (a,b,c) of #2 must pass in order to confirm the Proposal

As a result, we need an option for if ANY of 2a, 2b, or 2c fail, and that should be to move the 15k/wk to the Staker rewards until the governors decide to implement a different LP Balancer plan or whatever.

If #1 passes and the rest fails, this will have ZERO positive impact on the MTA situation as there will still be no effective LP Rewards program for Balancer at all (which is the same as now)

The $3.8m in the 5:95 is what is hurting the price via weighting formulas. Removing the rewards does not change that, but at least the rewards are not being “wasted” on what the community thinks is a LP Rewards program. It forces acknowledgement for need to change.

As a result, it is somewhat illogical to vote anything except for YES to all or NO to all…

  • NO to #1 keeps the MTA rewards being paid back to MTA stakers via MTA rewards on their own EarnPool. Those rewards were named as LP rewards… not staker double dip. If NO to #1 there is no funding for #2.
  • YES to #1 means you want to change the rewards and help LP incentives in order to bring price stability
  • NO in the #2 section breaks the proposal math, and invalidates the idea
  • YES in the #2 section commits to a temporary 13 week LP program and then re-evaluate prior to the end to either renew, change, or terminate.

This is the only plan that I will submit.

All or none.

If it fails, yall can modify it and re propose or propose something else or let the MTA token die.

But, I am 100% liquidating to the 25:25:25:25 pool if this fails for loss mitigation.

That would be undeniable proof that the govs would rather cater to stakers than math, logic, fairness, stability, equity, price growth, innovation, and being industry leaders. (imo)

I understand many govs do not have the math knowledge or in depth understanding of how and why this all works. But I think anyone can see by the MTA price action that something is wrong.

This was my audit result and educated recommendation as an independent LP, investor, and LAMP stack developer who has been with bitcoin since 2014.

Take that for what it is worth.

I look at this issue from the perspective of improving the liquidity and utility of mAsset.

I think the 25 pool is suggestive because there is a utility improvement to mUSD.
The 5/95 pool is not positive because it does not contribute to mAsset.

You may be thinking, “that is ridiculous”, But this is diversity.
I respect you that made some thought-provoking suggestions. Why don’t we respect each other and find a compromise?

All or none is the furthest suggestion to reach agreement with someone who disagrees with you.

As I’ve written before, I’m in favor of treating 123 as an independent proposal for a vote.
If we can’t reach consensus because of the priority of all or none, I would prefer to separate Proposal, and put 1 on the poll first.
Because almost everyone agree about this.

2 Likes

Thanks! Quite diplomatic of you.

How about a counter-compromise :smiley:

Vote issue #1 must pass for #2 & #3 to be voted on

ie, if 15k stays on 5:95 then the entire proposal fails for lack of funding for issues #2 & #3

2&3 are bundled vote

ie YES or NO 5k->25:25:25:25 AND 10k->95:5

If the 2+3 bundle passes, allow a 3rd issue on it to commit to the following phrasing:

YES or NO:
Duration and exit strategy:
“The rewards pool is intended to be a 13 week program. However, governance retains the right to modify or terminate the program through normal voting processes at any time, and for any or no reason.”

It shows that govs acknowledge the need for consistency on the rewards programs the govs make, but they also retain (in legal speak even) rights to edit/end.

One more math point I forgot:

The 3 Balancer pools with rewards (if 123 pass) will have an overall ratio:

(95+25+5)=125/300 mUSD weight
(95+25+5)=125/300 MTA weight
25 BAL weight
25 wETH weight

Much better than the current
95:5 mUSD:MTA Balancer rewards pools.

I like your #1 on winding down the 15k/wk MTA rewards from the current 5% MTA / 95% mUSD pool.

By the way, part of decentralized governance is to coordinate and find consensus with the rest of the stakeholders :slight_smile:

Well, I was being overly passionate about it. Now I am using the calm logical approach. I was truly offended by the current LP “rewards” program but found it laughable that at least stakers have to see now too that LP needs matter.

The price would not have bottomed above $1 if some people didnt start screaming :fire: :fire: :fire:

As the author of this proposal, I would like to know what is needed to move forward on taking a vote.

Let’s put 12&3 to vote as a budled deal and remove #4.

Simpify it to:

Proposal could read:

"This proposal is to remove 15k MTA/wk MTA rewards from the current 5MTA:95mUSD pool (contract address in forum proposal) and split them as follows:

1. Place 5k MTA/wk on the 25mUSD:25MTA:25BAL:25wETH pool (contract address in forum proposal)
2. Place 10k MTA/wk on the NEW 95MTA:5mUSD pool (contract address in forum proposal).

YES or NO"

I liquidated my test MTA to the pools B & C an hoyr ago. 6 swaps so far.

~$3.8m EarnPool liquidity

What is this you are referring to?

The sum of staked BPT in the 5:95. All MTA related BPT is in the 5:95 side of the lopsided setup pulling price down by w1t1=w2t2 math and lack of incentive to buy in at more than a 5% weight.

Personally, i WILL stake bpt in a pool that makes sense for someone who believes mStable will prove to be a $1b+ project…

But i need mta heavy and so does the ecosystem.

And balanced pools with mAsset ecosys value

update
on telegram

"Yes, it will be a multi-step vote.

  1. Wind down - yes or no.
  2. If yes, where to re-allocate (don’t re-allocate, re-allocate to other pools, re-allocate to staking); these options could change depending on what people say between today and next Friday."

November 6.

This is a better solution:

2.5k stays on 5:95
5k goes to 25x4 pool (above)
7.5k goes to 95:5 (above)

Here is my logic:

If I were a voter, I would vote on my revised re-allocation for the 5:95 changes…

There is already an expired 95/5 pool that was retired just a few weeks ago. What is the idea behind starting it up again? Sorry if I missed some crucial info along the lines, but I thought the idea was to retire both the 95/5 and the 5/95 pool now that Governance and the 3 pool is live?

3 Likes

Balancer liquidity is a crucial part of the ecosystem from my perspective, and the current set up dragged the price to a $0.95 pin (mathematically speaking).

The entire point of my proposal here is to create a 13 week program to undo that damage and then retire/modify… But I bet that Govs will see the value and vote to ratify fo a full year after the 13 week trial period.

We are dealing with APYs… annual percentage rates…

2.5k/5.0k/7.5k is strongest Balancer set.

I am only asking to reallocate the 15k that pinned the price and give it time to heal. This will boost APYs accross the ecosystem.

I understand, thanks for clarifying. I agree that Balancer does offer something that no other AMM offers.

I don’t quite see the rationale in splitting the rewards up to 3 different pools though, when two of them were just very recently voted out of the program, with an overwhelming majority. What would the benefit be of having 3 pools compared to 1 meta pool on Balancer, especially when a new 4-token pool could be more heavily incentivized to create the necessary liquidity?

Especially if we tweak the percentages, I think we could ensure plenty of liquidity on Balancer for all important ERC-20s mStable is concerned with, no?

Let’s start with rationale:

The current rewards are on the 5mta:95mUSD pool are incentivizing conversion to mUSD from MTA (If I have 100 mta I have to sell to get the 5:95 ratio… Buying into a pool with a single asset still causes the sell of 95%mta). To say the least the current setup only helps those who want to hold mUSD and use EARN for extra APY.

However, 15k/wk MTA @ $1.00 each in a $4,000,000 pool doesnt really help those people too much either.

(I am using italics and bold for emphasis, my tone is :smiley:)

I want to keep 2.5k MTA/Wk on the 5:95 for these reasons:

  1. By removing 83% of rewards from this pool into the othe two pools that bring price stability benefits the people who are in the 5:95 by increasing the value of the rewards (MTA price) and also lowering liquidity from the pool (as people move to other rewarded pools with logical use cases)
  2. People paid gas to enter the pool and stake the BPT… Let’s not burn them by acting like we dont care about the fact that they paid fees to join in. They deserve rewards too
  3. 5:95 is the lowest risk, gets lowest reward

now to the 4x25 (MTA:mUSD:BAL:wETH) rationale

  1. It creates 5 new trading pairs on balancer that do not exist at all otherwise.
  2. The 0.09% fee will make this the most active pool for fees on several of the pairs
  3. 5k/wk rewards + the natural 40% totalAPY can give mStable a rewarded pool with a consistent 50%+ APY. [[This really is the LP pool that matters most of the set in terms of value to the ecosystem (imo)]]

now rationale for 95:5

  1. There is only one reason that MATTERS for 7.5k/wk on this right now: since the 95%mta:5%mUSD pool [with] 7.5kMTA/wk… mtaAPY is LEAST affected by the current MTA price fail this pool will have intentionally unsustainable APY until it gets diluted.

The only way to dilute (aside from already having MTA) is to “buy in” (versus “sell in” on the current setup.).

LP yield farmers wont ignore a 600% apy… They will pay gas and buy in.

the buying in raises mta price and APY on all pools ya gotta do this… But do it for 3 months until it stabilizes.

THE DIVERSITY in pool ratios will fix the underlying math forumlas that are also pulling us down to a nickel.


As for the “overwhelming majority” voting for this setup… Vomit. (Oops). The majority of voters didnt do their math homework and screwed the #1 active LP source for MTA up so bad that MTA may be the first crypto to crater 99% and then skyrocket 20,000% if they do this right.


I am asking for a little over 10% of the 120k mta weekly to be reallocated within its current protocol. Hardly a major decision to make when the price is plummeting.

If there had been an emergency vote like I originally asked for, we would be above $2 instead of testing $0.80 soon.

The ratios in the 3 pools i propose all serve a specific and exact purpose, designed to be most effective to fix and reverse the damage done by the overwhelming majority :laughing: