I am in support of shifting INDY rewards to the liquidity providers on other DEXes and extending the emission of INDY tokens.
I would suggest though that adjustments to the stability pool allocations would take as a factor, some measure or index for how much of the total deposits are risking liquidation within some percentage…
What I mean is, if a lot of liquidations are approaching, those stability pools should probably increase their rewards to incentivize more protection. Not sure if that is possible at this stage.
Stability pool rewards are critical so not to be messed with! What we are needing is liquidity in liquidity pool and lower the rewards pay out. Simple increased LP rewards and maintain stability pool reward as that’s the liquidation mechanism. The governance staking pool rewards can be lowered a little. We need to let people work for Indy! Not just stake and not provide LP
I receive rewards both as a stability pool supporter and as a WR LP provider.
My largest commitment of the two is to the SP within the INDY protocol.
If I understand the proposal correctly then I feel the alteration would encourage me to move funds from the SP to the LP on WR.
People will chase the best rewards commensurate with risk .
I like the idea of focusing on increasing the treasury. And to also increase the rewards for those who stake and vote. This does a couple of things.
Incentivizes governance participation
acts as a soft “freeze” in a sense that indy is visible to all and non actively trading, this could effect the price in a positive way,
Treasury can be very useful as a tool, you can stake it, lend, etc
The bigger the treasury the better chance for longevity, to be able to provide rewards for shareholders in the future and to be able to fund partnerships or hire devs, or party on a boat, kidding
It gives more power and value to holders and creates intrinsic value.
Extending the reward payout by 3 years can be good and bad. I like to see tokens with a high % of sharefloat available in the secondary market, this promotes decentralization and free market.
On the contrary it is sometimes better for a few good people who founded the company to keep watch over the lot of shares in the beginning. and the slower the drip of rewards, the longer the carrot is held in front of the horse for the remaining public. This also extends a confirmation for at least one form of income for holders.
1- We should keep the planned increase for INDY stakers. The incentive to stake INDY gets less and less and it creates sell pressure. Alternatively, portion of excess 10K INDY can be distributed to INDY stakers
2- if the rewards of iETH and iBTC is decreased by 50% for the stability pools as proposed, people will take their assets from stability pools and next proposal will be to increase it again to bring them back. The reduction should be less.
The adjustment to rewards is reasonable. The shift would encourage me to explore uses for iAssets outside the Indy protocol. The parent bird nudging the baby to fly. And extending the rewards distribution offers more time to grow the community of those staking and using iAssets. I like how forward-thinking this proposal is.
