Pretty basic calculations. Essentially put in the target liquidity ($1M = $800K in BANK + $200K in ETH) and the monthly BANK allocations, which gives us an annualized run rate.
Essentially, at current prices, this program would get us a 12% APY if we reach the $1M target (plus maintain access to Discord, etc.). I think it’s a good jumping off point for us to explore a liquidity mining program and potentially doubling down on it for Season 2 if it’s successful (i.e. bake the program into the S2 allocations).
Gotcha. Do you think we can achieve 800K USD in BANK? Given the depth of existing pools, it seems ambitious. Or will we able to use BPT to maintain Level 1 membership?
Yeah I think one of the reason’s we’ve had trouble with it is because people lose their discord access or level 3 status - we can work around this with this model.
Even if it doesn’t get achieved, it’s just a higher APY for the people that do LP
Imo it’s worth just testing out in a 2 month trial and then we can revisit Seasonal LM programs in Season 2+ (I’m also keen on a Uniswap V3 program once there’s more battle-tested contracts out there)
I would like to see some return directly to the DAO for this. The pool together pod would possibly have BANK farms while the treasury collects the POOL tokens. I feel this should be conditional on Tier 4 BAL rewards which would then go to the treasury.
Balancer is going to be launched on Arbitrum at the end of the month ( https://portal.arbitrum.one/ ) which now gives us the option to launch the BANK Balancer pool on either layer 1 or layer 2. I posted in the #Tokenomics channel of the Treasury Guild about this the other day. @frogmonkee was interested in the idea of launching this BANK Balancer pool on Arbitrum. @Kouros preferred keeping it on layer 1.
Layer 1 is more accessible to DeFi users in general, but I am curious to see how fast users move to Arbitrum since it will have a full set of apps and tokens out the gate. I assume we will likely keep the BANK Balancer pool on layer 1, but I wanted to bring this to everyone’s attention. After a couple of months or so, we could vote to move the BANK LP incentives to layer 2 if that would be possible (and desired).
Hi everyone, I’m Bakamoto, and head up Balancer’s Liquidity Mining Committee. Just wanted to chime in here to say that Balancer is happy to match the proposed BANK rewards here for the duration of the program in BAL.
Assuming you run the 500,000 BANK over 8 weeks, that’s ~$5,600/week as of this post, approximately 200 BAL / week. So the pool would be incentivised with 200 BAL / week and 62,500 BANK per week.
Our liquidity mining weeks run from Monday 00:00 UTC to the following Monday 00:00 UTC, and LM Committee decisions need to be decided ~mid week to start the following week. We’re currently doing something similar with LIDO on the wsteth pool, which would serve as a sensible distribution mechanism in advance of our staking contracts being ready (expected later in Fall).
Couple questions from us:
The current pool has a 2% fee, which isn’t competitive with the SUSHI pool, is this intentional for some reason? While you might not want to go so low as 0.3%, it currently seems high and would make it hard to achieve your target of $10k at 2% slippage. Not sure who controls the pool fee, but should be relatively easy to update?
Do you guys have a timeline on when you’ll be ready to vote on this and start liquidity mining from?
Hey @bakomoto! Good to see you here - I believe pool has the Gauntlet dynamic fees. I’m not sure if anyone has reached out to them to activate it though.
We were also wondering if we needed any frontend or staking UI to implement this. If not, what’s the process look like for us allocating the tokens to Balancer V2?
I’m not actually 100% sure on the technical details, Rab is probably best person to ask on that. For lido people claim their rewards here: Balancer and I believe we’re doing the same with vita from next week.
Something else that might be worth thinking about is with the rewards relatively low in total $ terms and gas prices high on ETH, could be expensive for people to do the weekly claims & some number of people’s rewards might be lower than the gas costs. Depends on whether you’re expecting lots of smaller LPs or a handful of LPs providing all the liquidity. On Arbitrum by comparison that wouldn’t be an issue.
All this complexity gets solved when our staking contracts are ready, and will create a much more seamless experience overall for dual incentives. Unfortunately my understanding is still a couple of months away due to auditing scheduling.
So i have been checking out the math on this balancer stuff and i just don’t get it.
Sell bank at the lows, buy it back on the highs, and in return get an inversely related balancer token, never mind that now my governance weight is at risk cause it’s dependent on Balancer.
This feels like a Tron Dapp, what am i missing, it seems i am permanently loosing here, and paying a premium in gas fees to do this
Voted yes.
