✅ [Temperature check] Emissions controller

After the long discussion regarding the emissions controller in this post, I think that we should move forward with a proposal. While we discussed creating a proposal with several options, I think it’s better to align on what we believe it’s best to move forward and use that option as the only one on the formal MIP. Which is way I created a poll (that you’ll find down the post).

First, if you haven’t followed the whole thread, here’s a TL;DR:

  • MTA emissions from the controller have been really harmful to mStable protocol and MTA token. This proposal aims the reduce the harm by either reducing/stopping the emissions or directing them in more efficient ways.
  • There are several options to do this, and all of them have their pros and cons (which I’ll state below). However, in order to consider an option it has to be ”plug and play”, in the sense that it shouldn’t take a lot of resources to implement because the development team is mostly focused on building the Meta Vaults, and anything else will take away their time(which we are positive that will eventually drive more value to MTA holders).
  • Considering this, these are the options:
    1. Halting emissions completely
      • Pros: It might decrease the selling pressure on MTA and it’s really easy to implement.
      • Cons: Stakers won’t get much value, which could cause more selling pressure from their side (and might even nullify the effect of reducing the emissions).
    2. Reduce emissions
      • Pros: It’s a less drastic measure. If we still believe that MTA stakers should have control over the emissions of MTA, but we believe that we should adjust the amount of MTA being emitted, this is the right choice.
      • Cons: it requires a contract update. The impact of this choice will be smaller than completely halting them (but it depends on the size of the reduction). Additionally, it might also increase the selling pressure on stakers because they would also not be getting much from staking.
    3. Disabling most dials (all, except for treasury and staking)
      • Pros: it will have a large impact in decreasing the selling pressure, without affecting stakers economics. It’s very easy to implement.
      • Cons: makes it pointless to have a controller (although it is easy to restore).
    4. Disabling some dials (leave only treasury, staking, imUSD Mainnet and Polygon)
      • Pros: It will reduce the selling pressure and allow MTA stakers to maintain control over the emissions
      • Cons: The impact will be smaller.
    5. Do nothing
      • Pros: nothing
      • Cons: MTA price will probably keep going down, as yield seekers keep farming and dumping our token.

That being said:

What do you think we should do with dials?

  • Disable all dials, except for Treasury and Staking
  • Disable all dials except for Treasury, Staking and imUSD (Mainnet and Polygon)
  • Leave all dials as they currently are

0 voters

How much do you think we should reduce the emissions?

  • 0% - Do not reduce
  • 50%
  • 75%
  • 90%
  • 100% - Stop all emissions

0 voters

A comment on changing the amount of emissions - if we do this, should we consider committing the full amount of MTA to the EC contract and removing upgradability so that there is certainty that this won’t change again? (not sure on practicality from a technical point of view)

Also, just selecting a % amount to reduce emissions by misses some potential nuance. I would advocate for extending the emissions over a much longer period of time compared to the current ~5 years remaining. This would help ensure sustainability of any new tokenomics model. This wouldn’t necessarily have to reduce total emissions, but would reduce the amount in any given epoch.

The overemission is very bad and as a holder of MTA and supporter of Mstable, I feel very disappointed.

Thanks for bringing this up I think the option 4 is a good halfway in between reducing the impact to MTA holders and also letting them control the emissions.

  1. Disabling some dials (leave only treasury, staking, imUSD Mainnet and Polygon)
  • Pros: It will reduce the selling pressure and allow MTA stakers to maintain control over the > emissions
  • Cons: The impact will be smaller.

In the other hand reducing emissions now could help MTA holders on the next phases of the product, so it is a win win for protocol sustainability and MTA holders

Thanks for following up on this dial discussion @jkusne

I think the staking // imUSD dials are vital to mStable at the moment.
I consider the MTA going to the associated dials as an operational cost for the project ( Staking rates = decentralisation costs & a way to lock supply; imUSD vaults rewards = cost promote integrations and large deposits)
I think reducing emissions by half is a good effort and will help reduce sell pressure

1 Like

Seems like we have a clear and somewhat unclear result…

I think it’s fair to assume that we agree to reduce emissions, and the majority voted for 50%. So we could work out a new emission schedule and put it into a formal proposal once we have a solution.

For the dials issue both results are fairly close:

  • 46%: Disable all dials, except for Treasury and Staking
  • 36%: Disable all dials except for Treasury, Staking and imUSD (Mainnet and Polygon)

Since those options are fairly similar in terms of technical specifications, I would put this to a vote for a formal proposal. The third option to reject would also be given. So here we can also move it forward and put it into a formal proposal.

If there are no major objections, we would proceed this way.

2 Likes