[CAP] Remove GUSD+FRAXBP from the FRAX Omnipool


GUSD is a stablecoin from Gemini that is currently included in the FRAX pool via the GUSD+FRAXBP Curve Pool. This Curve Pool has been included since the launch of the FRAX Omnipool. When the FRAX pool launched and it was initially included, Gemini was bribing on Votium for CRV rewards to be directed to this pool and it had a positive APR for depositors. However, since the last few rounds of bribes Gemini has stopped bribing rewards for this pool. This has resulted in a significant decrease in APR for this pool.

GUSD currently has a target allocation of 13.57% for the FRAX Omnipool. A vote to remove it would involved setting the weight to 0 in the next LAV, then removing it from inclusion in future LAVs.


It should be in the best interest of Conic governance to make general optimisations towards positive APR Curve Pools to ensure LPs are receiving competitive yield on their deposits. With Gemini no longer rewarding this pool, directing LP liquidity to this pool no longer seems in the best interest of the protocol.


All pools should aim to provide a positive risk free rate against highest yielding US treasuries. Voters should be aligned in this manner regardless of listed pools, as the value of CNC and the performance of aggregation of the protocol needs to outperform average stablecoin return in DEFI over time.

1 Like

Agree with this proposal, and should have a vote soon to remove this pool from FRAX Omnipool.

1 Like

I would argue that the purpose of the LAVs is partly to seek this optimisations towards positive APR and ensure LPs are receiving competitive yield on their deposits. Therefore, if a pool underperforms like GUSD+FRAXBP, I would expect it to be reflected in the LAW, without the need for a separate vote to remove it.

That being said, the GUSD+FRAXBP Curve pool has had below 10M$ TVL for about 2 months now, which would make it ineligible for a CAP. While there is no rule against a pool dipping below 10M$ TVL, staying there for a long period justifies, in my opinion, having it removed, as it shows a lack of trust / interest from the larger Curve community.

I support the proposal.

1 Like

My view of this will be if the vlCNC holder is very sensitive to the Curve pools and will actively go to look on at either its volume, TVL, or the tAPR. Just worry that the LAW voters are not sensitive to this then it might affect the APR for the Ominipool LPs.

But I agree with your opinion that this might affect how the community looks at us.