I would be in favor of tapering off TRU emissions for the UNI/ETH pool but not outright reducing it by 50% in one chunk. Generally dramatic changes in any farming pool aren’t great for current farmers.
As a farmer myself I commiserate. But I think to build a great protocol we need to, in general, put the interest of the protocol over the interest of farmers. Ultimately we’re looking to build the world’s best uncollateralized lending protocol not the world’s best farming protocol. Farming needs to be in strictly in service of this or it’s the tail wagging the dog.
Based on the polling above, I’m proposing that we move forward with the following. This is meant to be consistent with the middle of community sentiment- it doesn’t go as far as some would like and goes farther than others would like, but overall I think it’s a good step.
75% reduction for the ETH/TRU Uniswap Farm 202,166 TRU/day -> 50,541 TRU/day
25% reduction for the TFI-LP/TUSD Uniswap Farm 156,960 TRU/day - > 117,720 TRU/day
15% reduction for the TFI-LP Farm 171,138 TRU/day - > 145,467 TRU/day
Other farms: no change at this time.
Vote on Proposal
YES I agree with the proposal as stated
NO I disagree with the proposal
If YES gets 51% of the vote we will implement the proposal
If NO gets 50% of the vote we will discuss as a community how to adjust and then take a new vote.
Agree with @Jacks & @dnlklr suggestion for a TRU/ETH Uniswap taper.
The Balancer transition took quite a few folks by surprise (I noticed it in social + community questions about it), despite being reasonably well publicized in those same channels. A transitionary period would lighten the hit and give folks time to exit with less pain from IL.
Team withdrawing liquidity isn’t part of this proposal- why would we rather the protocol pay 60% APY for something (liquidity) it can get from us for free? To be crystal clear: we’re building a lending protocol and not a farming protocol. The farming program should serve the protocol, not the other way around. Otherwise it is the tail wagging the dog.
But meanwhile TRU price would continue to decline, hurting all holders and giving everyone both increased impermanent loss and just loss.
Talked this morning with some of the folks that are against the proposal and it sounds like the main objection is that the 75% reduction in the Uniswap TRU/ETH farm is too drastic.
What would folks think if we complemented this proposal by saying that the company will only farm half of its Uniswap LP tokens for this farm? The company would continue providing strong liquidity in this Uniswap market would only farm at most half of that.
This would balance out the significant reduction in TRU/day with an increase because of the company farming less of it. APY for this farm would still overall go down but not as much as if we just had a 75% reduction without any other changes.
I know some folks would like to see the company cease farming entirely- I’m open to this but think it would be quite damaging for token price if it’s not also accompanied by reductions in the farm emissions. So I think this may be a good compromise.
This vote has now passed and will be going into effect shortly. In conjunction, the company will be reducing its farming of the Uniswap TRU/ETH pool to continually be at most half of the LP tokens it holds.
UPDATE: this has been put into effect using three TXNs: 1, 2, 3