I’d just like to reiterate that for me not having a MC-USDC LP is full on a break point, and that includes exclusion of another MC-ETH LP.
the prizes deriving from staking must absolutely be released immediately, otherwise someone could think of a scam, and we do not attract new investors, and the price always falls, wake up and take action immediately, put to the vote immediately.
Spot on, very good points. For long-term holding ETH and MC is clearly a superior investment.
It´s beyond ironic to have some many people in crypto favoring a centralized stablecoin pegged to fiat money.
A great man once said I must stop thinking like dev, so I read this thread twice: once reading as dev, once reading as cat. I think there were some interesting points raised, but both cat and dev me agree that we need an USDC LP. I think impermanent loss is a meme with staking rewards implemented. Profit made from MC rewards will far outperform any impermanent loss made or fees earned.
Long term, Tommy might be right about the inflation risk of USDC, but right now we’re in uncertain times and being tied to a highly volatile assets seems very risky. I think the ETH-MC LP decision was made with the expectation that ETH would keep on climbing against the USD, but that didn’t happen, so it might be justified to call that a mistake.
The opinions seem very divided about this topic and waiting till November is silly. Even if Tommy is right long-term, we can still profit from USD non-volatility short-term. I say we put it to a vote to add a USDC-MC LP Pool to the staking contract and adjust the weights of the current pools. Currently, the single-sided staking is 20% and ETH-LP is at 80%. Perhaps for the rest of the staking period we can adjust the weight to:
- Single-side: 15%
- USDC-LP: 40%
- ETH-LP: 45%
If the ETH-LP lockoooors feel rugged because of the decrease in weight, perhaps it might be an idea to provide additional MC to the rewards pool? I am too clueless about current available MC balance for this, so it might be a low IQ suggestion.
Anywho, counter my suggestions and let’s make a proposal for a real solution. USDC LP can not be ignored.
Electric Dick Dev
My 5 cents: I don’t think single side MC staking makes any sense - just paying people for not selling (here I agree with Cobie’s article).
LP pools are useful (provide liquidity) and should be with max priority to ETH - just because whatever the liquidity is the pair MC/ETH would be much more popular on Uniswap than any other with MC. So - we can do something like 70%(ETH)/10%(WBTC)/20%(USDC) or just leave ETH alone.
What do you think the weight for MC should be within the LP position? 70%? And 30% the other pairing asset(s)? Or you mean something else? 50/50… 80/20… 75/25?
Also in a 80/20, 75/25 or 70/30 LP pool scenario?
The pairing asset would matter less in such a scenario, I think this would also greatly improve the average liquidity depth. Since a lot of single staking will be comfortable with such ratios.
The liquidity efficiency of the pool will be lower, but the total pool will have a much larger size. Moreover, the people in the LP pool will suffer much less IL and can maintain more relative $MC exposure per $ in the pool.
A poll is now live to gauge which LP pairing asset is preffered by the DAO community. This is the first Official Merit Poll (MP-1).
Uniswap allows only 50/50 - am I wrong? Or do you consider switching to another platform? 50/50 seems to be most natural, although I’m not a great theorist in this domain.
Uniswap v2 only allows 50/50
Uniswap v3 allows custom ratios. Like 75/25 (random example). Other platforms like Balancer also allow for this.
Not sure if its been discussed yet but what happens with the current pools?
Will they be migrated or will they stay in place?
They will be phased out.
Locked v1 stakers do not have to worry. Rewards will not stop until the very last staker is unlocked. Every v1 staker will get their proportional share of rewards, regardless if you lock tomorrow for 1 day before v2 for another 12 months.
Once v2 is live, people can no longer add stake to v1 staking. They will only be able to withdraw their LP and rewards, while rewards will continue for another 12 months.
So we’ll be stuck with ETH LP for the rest of the year? How is this a solution? Then we’re still tied to ETH for a long while. We need a migration.
If the main pool becomes USDC, you’ll have both pools for the rest of the year. In that scenario ETH relative share will decline, until there is only USDC left. That is not necessarily a problem, most trades are routed anyway.
It is not possible to migrate a pool with a different pairing or ratio.
When do you expect this new staking process to be implemented? I am asking mainly to decide on if I should stake in V1 now or hold off for V2. Thanks!
Hey there Cadet.
As soon as possible! No hard timeline, sorry.
Either way, you should not worry. We will implement a system where it should not matter much wether your in v1 or v2.
First poll concluded the LP pool should be paired with USDC. A significant majority voted for this option.
A new poll [MP-2] is now online to decide how long people will be able to lock there stake for:
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
After the creation of this proposal, and the questions that arose from the community we have re-opened this topic to continue any discussion around staking.
Any ideas, suggestions or amendments that gain significant traction will be considered for a proposal.