I could be wrong but it doesn’t look like it. At least the latest extension to the SNX pool suggest that the function only takes the pool token and a new end time.
Yes, I think so as well but I am not sure what the backlog is at the moment on the developer side. I think making the contracts more gas efficient, porting to arbitrum, shadow tokens, and origin pools are the current focus. FYI, this is just speculation on my end so take this with a grain of salt (I have no insider information).
OK, I see what you are saying. Essentially what you are suggesting is for us to open up enough space to create a pool that’s $48M deep which would be roughly 3.5M in BNT co-investment (assuming BNT price of $7). This would open up $24M for the YFI side and if LM rewards are passed, then we should target 6% APY on the YFI side. What this means is that rather than emitting 120K-240K BNT in 12 weeks we would spread this out to meet the target (potentially 17.5K per month) 6% APY on the YFI side. We would also slightly raise the fees on the pool to potentially cover the rewards that are getting minted.
Essentially, the model that you are pitching is to grant pools LM rewards based on the fees that they are bringing to the protocol. From our end, we would emit less or more rewards based on the performance of the pool. Potentially, for YFI the proposal can be along the lines of granting another 12 week extension and emit 52.5K BNT (17.5K * 3 months) in this period. If at the end of the 12 week period we find that the fees are still there then we would evaluate and figure out how much BNT should be emitted for the next 12 weeks.
It’s hard to say, I would have to dissect the SQL query. My gut feeling is that this is the fees on the pool only so YFI-BNT swaps and vice versa. I think most people are probably swapping from stable coins or ETH in general and since that’s a multihop swap then my guess is that the fees from the first hop accumulate in those pools (ETH or stable pools) and the second hop in the respective destination pool (there are two conversion fees in this scenario that are payed).
I don’t think gas subsidies would get us much (I agree with your balancer assessment and making a more efficient AMM) and is probably better for us to put the effort into making the contracts more gas efficient (I think that’s where we will see the biggest gains and my understanding is that this is also the team’s focus). There is some good discussions going on in Trader incentives discussion that might be of interest to you as well as suggestions from the community on how we can grow the user base. As to the liquidity that might go to Arbitrum, I think it is too early to tell what will happen there. I think ultimately, whichever L2 solution gets the most tractions and projects there first might become the defacto winner and the Ethereum community will follow. It might be that Arbitrum (if they manage to launch before optimism) might have that first movers advantage and if we make the right bet and have Bancor running there before others then we would have the upper hand against other DEXes. Again, I think it is too early to tell.
I can’t really comment around the timeline of the previous LM campaign on the YFI pool. I was sitting on the sidelines back then and have only taken a more active role in the community recently (since I do love this community/project and wish for it to succeed.) Anyway, I am glad that you have taken the time to put up a good proposal for re-enabling LM rewards on the YFI pool since some of the others ones that I have seen lack in substance. It would be good for the YFI community to show their support and comment here if possible to show the Bancor community that they care about their pool.