It’s worth pointing out that your rationale for providing LM rewards for Rook is totally different than your rationale for extending rewards for Badger/Digg, but with the same result of providing limited rewards to low volume trading pairs which would be held by third parties regardless. It’s hard to see how we’ll significantly benefit in terms of fees from these relatively illiquid pools.
In both cases we would be offering rewards to entice groups that we don’t necessarily need/want to entice. I had hoped that LM rewards would be used to entice holders of valuable liquidity that would otherwise not participate.
Well there’s no right answer for what is and what isn’t appropriate for LM rewards…
I think that LM rewards can definitely be used to incentivize participation in certain places…
I also think that LM rewards can be used to ensure stickiness of liquidity.
Many in the rook community went ahead and joined the liquidity pool in anticipation of LM rewards. I don’t expect this liquidity to stick unless bancor recognizes this and rewards the liquidity.
It was an act of faith. Simply put.
It’s the 13th most liquid pairing on bancor now… I’d like to keep it that way / provide opportunity for further growth.
It’s a low volume day for Rook on uniswap, and it’s managed to generate 4m usd volume on 14m usd liquidity. The pairing is capable of generating significant volume when volatility isn’t low.
Edit to add:
Bancor has a unique opportunity here to absorb liquidity and volume from uniswap / sushi / etc.
This opportunity exists within a finite window of time. I’d rather take chances / make aggressive moves to seize this opportunity rather than exercising extreme caution and letting it slip through our fingers.
I hope that ROOK holders maintain their presence on Bancor. That said, I would much rather offer rewards to something like GRT for example who have 500m+ in daily volume. Ideally we are leveraging the limited pool of rewards to capture bluechips until their fee volume can eventually recoup and replace the rewards program.
It’s really hard for me to see that happening with ROOK.
That’s an interesting point. I know that it can be difficult to attract certain holders. GRT delegators for example have a long process to get their tokens out AFAIK, but I have to assume that if the rewards are sufficient, they will come anyway. It’s just true that people will follow the yields. Also, we’re looking at 500m+ trading volume a day for GRT which de facto doesn’t include any of the delegators.
I did not like the badger/digg proposal but this one I can understand a little better. I just think we are better off with established tokens since the model here is simply better. I don’t see the need to “take risks” the way you do.
I agree with this. I think liquidity mining rewards make a lot more sense to try and capture high value blue chips first and foremost. Adding such rewards for lower cap coins with more volatility and less volume introduces unnecessary risk at this stage, especially considering the pool is already full anyway. There’s still a wealth of blue chips with much higher volume we could incentivize instead, GRT, UNI, SUSHI, MKR, COMP, ALPHA, etc. I know you mentioned people pooled as an act of faith in anticipation of rewards but that is debatable because many tokens which have been listed already do not have liquidity mining rewards so why would ROOK be different?
I think it would make sense to revisit the addition of liquidity mining rewards to lower cap coins once Bancor has a solid hold over the top blue chips where most of the volume (and thus most of the fees / revenue) is anyway.
Get out of here with your rank 216 shitcoin. Stop making proposals to add LM rewards for shitcoins.
LM rewards should only be used to attract liquidity to pools that have demonstrated some kind of leadership in the space. Blue chip DeFi, stablecoins, ETH, wBTC only.
You should be banned from making proposals. You just had a shitcoin proposal knocked down and now you want another one.
idgaf. you are a loser who is just looking for attention and apy on your bags. stop trying to dilute the protocol by seeking LM rewards on your favorite shitcoins. gtfo.
I will vote AGAINST this proposal. This proposal only benefits the holders of ROOK to the detriment of holders of BNT. And in fact this is true of all the proposals made by Cryptomessiah so I think it’s about time he gets grilled for this.
Rook has higher volume today on bancor than Aave, Ocean, Renbtc, and Wnxm… which all have LM rewards.
This measurement makes no sense. You know why? Because all of ROOK liquidity is already in bancor. Let’s use a beter measure: liquidity in the pool vs total liquidity
This means the rewards will not be used to attract more liquidity, and the volume of trades is not going to increase either. Worst of all you’re taking BNT holders as hostage just to keep your token in the pool. I suggest you find a different pool for your tokens and honestly I’m surprised such a smallcap ponzi token made it into bancor at all.
Since the rook side of the rook/bnt pool is full already, I don’t see the point of adding liquidity mining rewards to this particular pool. The main reason for adding LM rewards is to bring in more liquidity, but looks like the incentive is good enough as it is currently, with IL protection and single sided exposure. No need to inflate the bnt supply by adding extra LM rewards for this pool. It wouldn’t benefit the bancor protocol overall, Hence I don’t support this proposal. A better idea would be to add a small amount of LM rewards on the bnt side of the pool only. This would give incentive for people to add their bnt to the pool → opens up more rook space → overal liquidity of the pool would be increased + the risk wouldn’t be solely taken by the protocol, but rather split between the bnt stakers
