Solving LP rewards issue

As we discussed in last meeting that LP rewards are quite high and unsustainable to continue this model of rewards.

I proposed this new idea:
LP rewards based on user’s influence. More the influence, better the rewards. But that too with upper limit of LP rewards in given period of time per LP token. So that people can not easily abuse the treasury. This will make sure that people will not create multiple ETH accounts and stake YUP because according to this model, if they don’t have any influence (or yup account), they will be rewarded less as compare to those with some influence score.
Use the protocol to get most out of it :slight_smile:

Suggestion and comments are always welcome.

11 Likes

I agree that rewards should be according to the activity and influence of a user with the protocol.

3 Likes

I think LQ rewards have the primary goal of attracting people to the project in the initial state.
As such, I see it natural that the LQ rewards operate in a time-limited framework, it should be thoroughly analyzed if it makes sense and if it helps the project to provide LQ rewards indefinitely.

3 Likes

i think your proposal is very good, reward that can the price not keep stable. at least you implement , in certain period of yup withdrawal, that would also help.

1 Like

I’m totaly agree with the limit of LP rewards given on a period time. But about the influence… As the protocol is right now, the LP tokens gives those poeple a lot of influence just for receive the LP rewards and hold a lot of tokens. I think that make the LP rewards based on the user’s activity is better, and by activity I mean the votes you do on 24 hours. If you don’t vote on 24 hours, you won’t recieve any LP tokens on the next 24 hours, and so, if you vote 40 times you recieve all your LP tokens. What do you thing @harsh?

5 Likes

It is necessary to take into account, that the solvency that give those who place liquidity, allows an exchange ecosystem, of not being, you could not even sell or buy. Also, in case the liquidity was much more girl than the current one, any operation that is carried out, would dismember the value of the Token.
The question more than nothing happens through two topics, more usability for the Token, and greater participation of users in liquidity placement (the latter, automatically makes the flung from APY and APR-ROI, besides giving more liquidity and solidity To the currency, since there would be greater flow, immensely lowering the volatility of the currency).
If you are limiting, you have to take into account, which are people who put your money at stake, in front of others who do not, if you ask that the distribution is carried out, only when you cure, then the reward distributed for them, minimally It would have to be of 5 to 10 times more than anything I place in liquidity, in turn, this should be proportional to the percentage amount that has placed in the background, unlike with the other investors. In case of not voting or cured, keep in mind, that its capital is at stake 24 hours, and others use it, so liquidity reward should continue to be distributed, but less extent, maybe equal to the maximum reward of the That does not place liquidity.
To what I am going, there must be proportionality between the one who risks capital and the one who does not. Because there apparently nobody thinks that the one who was juice putting yup-eth, he loses a lot when some of the two Cryptos fall, and that is not shared among all.

I exposed two possibilities for token uses:

The only thing I can say is that if in the hypothetical case that I would be a user that sold 96330 YUP and then came and talk about ways of increasing the value of the Token I would feel a bit like a hypocrite.

The idea of capital risk for those who sold repeatedly month after month and made much more than they invested is obviously a false dichotomy.

Also when @harsh mentioned a simple monthly cap on every LQ provider, and @nir pointed out that it can be exploitable by users making more accounts, then is simple you could fix that with mandatory BrightID for every LQ provider, with some determination such change wouldn’t take more than 2-3 days to implement.

7 Likes

LQ providers selling their token in a big amount frequently It’s making yup low in value. Once yup price was above 4 dollars but nowadays decreasing price gradually. it’s very high time to take some Initiative to stop the devaluation of the yup token.

3 Likes

I agree with @andrei0x309

But limited team size is the issue I guess. They can focus on one issue at a time.

6 Likes

Considering that those who added liquidity were able to recover their investment in a very short time and have been able to make a large amount of profit after recovering investment makes that at this moment almost a year after launching the protocol such investors or at least some of them are bleeding the ETH-YUP pool by withdrawing their profits.

And if nothing is done it will be those same investors who will sell their rewards and we will see the price of YUP very very low.

I am a new person in this world of cryptocurrencies and YUP is one of the few projects I have been involved in so I don’t have much experience to come up with a possible solution, but I think we can look at the solutions that other projects have done to give value to their token and that yup.finance has an APY that does not affect the value of their currency.

It is something complicated but if we look for a solution I am sure it can be found or if not we have to see how the token is devalued day after day with the sales of investors and all this allowed to the operation of yup.finance.

7 Likes