[Discussion] Proposal to Restructure

After reading Valon89x proposal for Proof of
Commitment concept, I would like to propose and expanded idea.

The original concept ([Discussion] Proof Of Commitment- Fundamentally Change Staking for MTA) proposed to add a 2nd Tier Value (T2V) via locking MTA rewards.

Essentially, if you earn MTA as an LP to sell interest, go for it. But if you want actual voting rights, there would be a lock period on rewards before they mature into vested voting rights represented by what he called mCommit.

Expanded proposal:

#1 Reduce weekly MTA emmission by 50% and reserve the other 50% for added value “mPrime” (explained later)

#2 Allow rewards locking (unspent rewards can be identified using UTXO info).

#3 Locked rewards mature after 12 months and upon maturity are unlocked AND a token called mVote is issued at a 1:1 ratio.

#4 In order to vote for mStable governance, you must carry 1 MTA and 1 mVote for each vote you wish to cast. mVote tokens are tradeable erc20 tokens so you dont HAVE to lock… You can just buy 1:1 MTA:mVote as well.

#5 In order to give value to all of this, users may also choose to burn 1 mVote and spend MTA to create 1 mPrime.

#6 Remember the 50% emmission reduction? Well here is the magic! When you burn 1 mVote and spend 1 MTA to get 1 mPrime, 1 MTA is taken from the reserve and wrapped WITH the 1 MTA you “spent” so 1 mPrime = 2mta! (And should be able to unwrap to 2 mta… Effectively you are burning the mVote to release the other 50% of your MTA reward, so 1 mVote should price near 1 MTA and 1 mPrime near 2 mta)

#7 Rewards that are spent cannot earn 1 mVote, so the reserve will have a 1:1 nonVoteReward:ReserveSurplus. Unclaimed mPrime rewards should be burned. This accounts for people who earn MTA rewards and dump. 1 dumped MTA reward = 1 burned MTA from reserve.

#8 Alternatively, you could distribute unclaimable mPrime rewards amongst mPrime holders, to encourage the complete cycle of:
Earn>Lock>Claim mVote>hold/vote until you are ready to sell>convert mVote+MTA to mPrime and earn dividends from unPrimed MTA rewards

1 Like

In theory, a cyclical plan would have been better off the cuff, but no protocol is doing that yet to my knowledge.

A new platform model could do 25% LP rewards x4 are allocated and when distributed to LPs, matching value sets are created to incentivize the user funnel.

Say I stake $800 in a 60/40 BAL wETH pool and earn 150% apy…

A lot of dumps and driving price down, causing platform LPs to run to the next newest deflationary governance token with high value APY.

Instead, LPs should earn, and at the same time spawn an earnable “next step reward”… In this case, locking “virgin utxo” rewards to earn the mVote token… A tier 2 token required to cast your vote, and fully backed by an equal initial LP reward amount.

Logically, the T3 token should enhance the T2 value while providing additional function… In this case, voter attrition and dividend program.

1 Like

Before examining the Proposal, we should make sure that it’s realistic and that the implementation man-hours are worth the effect.

If we spend so much time modding the MTA that the crucial v2 and other mAsset additions are delayed, It may have a negative impact on the project.


Personally, I think having multiple staking tiers is valuable. Might be worth exploring, although as what @mamedai has brought up, focusing on the product is what will eventually drive value and cannot be ignored.


I agree we should finish the V2, and as well to the other more recent post, I think you may have deleted it.

It was a good exercise in devil’s advocate

I’d say to your more recent point, you still have not solved the Governance issue or the MTA circulation issues.

As well there is no real commitment beyond simply staking. Also by shifting rewards around you arent making new value and as well we should definitely KEEP Save. It’s a very easy way for the laymen to enter crypto and earn passive income.

Its essential for mass adoption.

1 Like

Yes, this needs to be back-burner for a minute. The balancer pools right now are completely incentivizing MTA dumping. While most people complain about the price drop, that is really not the issue.

The good news is that user and community confidence is high, we just have to focus on fixing the hole in the bucket.

The administration should be concerned because MTA has a $5m mkt cap and there is $5m in mUSD : $500k in the relatively RISKLESS balancer pool with 15k MTA rewards… terrible for governance adoption because people can earn ridiculous rewards without risk, so they likely dump 95% of their interest back into the pool, driving price down and scaring away would be stakers, while further filling the bags of bagholders who expect a bounce that never happens because the PREVIOUS voting community (and some of the current) screwed the balance.

1 Like

Back burner any major gov changes please and focus on the effect of the 15k MTA assigned to the 5/95 MTA/mUSD pool.

I am not following my own topic here until other things get fixed. Nice to document the concepts for consideration… maybe something in it will be useful.

For now, the community needs to undo the damage being done by the 95/5 pool awards reallocation.

1 Like