Distribution of CNC rewards once AMM staker gets shutdown

Proposals
#1

What’s the issue?

Once the Curve gauge is live for the CNC/ETH Curve pool, the current contract that handles distribution of CNC rewards to LPs will need to be shutdown (as it currently does not support claiming CRV + CVX). There needs to be a decision as to how CNC rewards should be distributed once this contract is shut down.

Proposal

A vote should determine how CNC rewards should be used once the Curve gauge is live. There are essentially three scenarios:

  1. Use CNC as bribes (e.g. for vlCVX holders on Votium or for both veCRV and vlCVX holders on Paladin). This was already discussed here. The benefit would be that more liquidity can be attracted to the pool due to the higher APR.
  2. Use CNC as an extra reward (the CNC would be paid out through the Curve gauge as an extra reward, so LPs can claim CVX, CRV and CNC). The benefit would be that the LPs would receive CNC directly and presumably they are more comfortable holding CNC.
  3. Use CNC for both bribes and as an extra reward (e.g. a 50/50 split of inflation could be paid out for bribes and as extra rewards). The benefit of doing both could be that a more informed decision can be made as to what makes more sense in the long term (e.g. review how much was dumped vs locked, etc.).

If options 1 or 3 get passed, then another vote should determine which platform should be used to pay out the bribes (and to whom).

I propose to apply the outcome of the vote for the first three months once the Curve gauge is live and then re-evaluate. A good review point would be when the CNC emissions get reduced early April.

8 Likes
#2

IMO we should go with Option 1, and use CNC as bribes, as already stated we are getting positive slippage on APR and it will improve visibility of the project

4 Likes
#3

Hesitating between Option 1 and Option 3.
I am inclined to vote for Option 3 since it allows for better measurement of performance and optimization.

1 Like
#4

Maybe an Option 4, which is the same as Option 3, but instead of a 50/50 allocation, it is an allocation based on a separate weighted vote.

2 Likes
#5

Option 3 seems to me the wisest/safest bet

2 Likes
#6

Love Option 1, which has been discussed before, brings a great use case for CNC.

Option 3 is also great and helps the bootstrapping phase and attract more TVLs, but I think it will damage the long-term value of CNC. If we choose Option 3, maybe we could have more discussion on the ratios, and the ratio for extra rewards should be declining to a small amount.

3 Likes
#7

I support Option 3. It lets us better re-evaluate which option is better after 3 months.

2 Likes
#8

I prefer the option 1 as I find it a cleaner approach, particularly for the first months of existence of omnipools.

I am not sure how much data can actually be collected from a 50/50 experiment (or any ratio for that matter) to inform future decisions. So even if a split approach was to be retained, I’d initially prefer CNC to be mostly directed to bribes vs. rewards.

2 Likes
#9

I’m going to pick option 3 for the sole reason that it let’s us explore both options. If for whatever reason we see that 50/50 is bad then there can easily be a redistribution of the allocation to one or the other side.

1 Like