PGM-19 : Vote on palStkAAVE pools with the veAPW voting power (Formerly PGP-19)

Paladin Governance Management (PGM) PGM - Approved
1

Summary:
Redirect more rewards on palStkAAVE pools by voting on the gauges with veAPW.

Context:
The palStkAAVE has been listed since the launch on APWine protocol. Paladin DAO started a liquidity mining in PAL during 3 months, updated at each LM adjustment until we started a token swap to acquire 160K $APW.

The APW token can be locked (veModel),it allows the DAO to redirect more rewards in the Paladin pools by voting on the gauges. In addition, the DAO will accumulate APW tokens by locking (7.1% APR)

Rationale:
The goal of this proposal is to define a vote split between the PT/Underlying and PT/FYT, even if it can still be changed in a later vote.

Currently, the votes are saved from one week to another on APWine, even if you increase your lock it will update automatically, however if we want to change the votes, we’d have to vote each week.

Since the TVL between both pools are very different (210K$ for PT/Underlying vs 7K$ for PT/FYT), we initially voted to split the PAL rewards with a 75/25 ratio in favor of PT/Underlying, but the PT/FYT is the most interesting pool for Paladin which has around 16.6M votes, so we should reconsider the split by taking this and the TVLs into account.

For this reason, we could consider different options:

  • Option 1: 60% PT/Underlying - 40% PT/FYT
  • Option 2: 55% PT/Underlying - 45% PT/FYT
  • Option 3: 50% PT/Underlying - 50% PT/FYT

852×157 127 KB

At the moment, there are around 10.7M votes on PT/Underlying and 815K votes PT/FYT.

Option 1:

  • PT/Underlying : 16.6*0.6 + 10.7 (already on the gauge) = 20.66M votes, so this would basically double the APR, but keep in mind that the 10.7M can move each week.
  • PT/FYT : 16.6*0.4 + 0.8 (already on the gauge) = 7.5M votes so 9x more votes than the current ones.

Option 2:

  • PT/Underlying : 16.6*0.55 + 10.7 (already on the gauge) = 19.83M votes, so this would nearly double the APR with the current votes included.
  • PT/FYT : 16.6*0.45 + 0.8 (already on the gauge) = 8.3M votes, so 10x more votes

Option 3:

  • PT/Underlying: 16.6*0.5 + 10.7 (already on the gauge) = 19M votes so an increase of 77%.
  • PT/FYT: 16.6*0.5 + 0.8 (already on the gauge) = 9.1M votes so 11.5x more votes.

This can be adjusted in another vote if the pools are too unbalanced.

Means:
None

Technical implementation:
Vote on the gauges with the locked tokens Msig

Voting Options:
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Abstain

How should we split the veAPW voting power ?
  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • Option 3
  • Other (propose in the comments)
  • Abstain

0 voters

5 Likes
2

My personal opinion would be option 3
The yield and liquidity of the pt/underlying pool is already good, and the essence of the APWine protocol revolves around yield… if we don’t incentivize the pt/fyt pool enough, there will never be enough liquidity to trade yield or to benefit properly from a good fixed yield

1 Like
3

Yes I agree that it can be a good start, we can always adjust later if it’s too unbalanced.

1 Like
4

Option 3 is interesting because PT/FYT pools are often left-off by the farmers because of the volatility risk.
At the same time they are pretty rewarding in native yield as well as extra Liquidity Mining.
The most important thing to keep on consideration is that the amount of liquidity in the PT/FYT pool is bounded by the amount of liquidity all together on APWine in term of FYT and somewhat by the liquidity of the PT/Underlying pool.
Ie. If they expected yield is 10%:
FYT price should be around 0.1 Underlying, meaning that for 1 underlying on APWine, only the equivalent of 0.2 Underlying can be added to the PT/FYT pool.
That’s why I’m usually pretty conservative on the yield attributed to the PT/FYT pools. But concidering the fact that the risk is higher, a higher APR makes sense.
Eager to see what is coming😉

3 Likes
5

PGP 19 is live on snapshot : Snapshot

1 Like