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.
Could you try again? Not sure what might be wrong…
Can see ability to click vote now, and it worked. Thanks.
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.
excellent compromise.