I think I’m starting to recoil from “incentives management” as it seems to be the primary community social activity, and I think our efforts are likely better spent elsewhere, like allocating FLX to the DAO to create RAI educational content.
As a result I’m going to generally support lowering FLX emissions for liquidity across the board, including in the current poll.
I voted to:
- reduce Uni v3 RAI/DAI LP + mint incentives by 50 FLX/day
- keep Uni v2 RAI/ETH LP incentives the same (do not increase)
- not introduce a pure mint incentive (more below)
- keep mint requirement off for Uni v2 RAI/ETH
- no need to rush the incentive adjustment (do it on July 15th)
I think we want to incentivize the minimum amount of RAI liquidity such that we still get quality RAI price feeds and manipulation isn’t too easy. So far we’ve discussed having 10% of the RAI supply available as liquidity in onchain AMMs that are used for the RAI oracle price at any time. Everything above that is probably us overpaying for liquidity…
Dr. Ghosto makes the case for a “pure mint” incentive right after he explains how the current incentives have skewed behaviors. IMO if our goal is to be neutral with respect to the controller, then we should do away with incentives, not add more. The pure mint incentive is also flawed because its “fairness” depends on the current APR estimation of 2-4%, which could swing rapidly with the FLX price. If FLX doubled or tripled then the pure mint incentive might be too high, once again skewing user behavior. If there was an easy way to automate it, I would be more in favor, but as it stands it will be annoying to deal with discussing updating the rate each month…
With respect to RAI/DAI Uni v3 LP, I agree that it’s annoying that RAI/DAI LPs, when they get pushed out of range, have to become RAI buyers. I think the curve v2 RAI/DAI LP + mint incentive suggested by @kyoronut could be a better fit for bootstrapping RAI liquidity, but of course that has to be deployed first.