As we’ve experienced over the past twelve months, a fixed budget for Quests is simply not effective. Instead, we have opted for a dynamic input depending on token price, state of pools, as well as efficiency of the Quest.
Considering our emissions on the upcoming tokenomics revamp it makes no sense to increase emissions (up to 50,000 PAL / week). The goal is to create a boosted pool (pending confirmation of Balancer) and incentivize a dstkAave 80-20 pool.
We haven’t mentioned discontinuing it for the time being. The tokenomics rework is exploring a dynamic system where we would be able to embed PoL farming in the process.
Simply put: token price lost close to 60% of its value, making incentives 2.5x more expensive, Dullahan was upcoming, the DAO had 0 incentives to attract more users in the meantime. We had a mandate to manage a budget as efficiently as possible and made the best decisions we had at hand.
This is simply untrue as TVL was down only on the product despite the large emissions. Only a handful of users were benefiting from excessive APR. As you can see in DeFi Llama, the change in program in January and March had next to no impact on total TVL:
Furthermore, do you expect a program created at 10M$ + TVL and in a bull market is still relevant today?
Sure, what do you have in mind? Bear in mind it needs to be lean and we can’t ask for the approval of DAO members each round. Especially not if they are a large LP + arbitrageur + voter, it creates heavily distorted incentives.
Also would love to see more attention on the tokenomics proposal