TL-DR : Reducing UNI pool allocation, removing borrow incentives on Aave, Compound and Idle, and extending the campaign by a month.
Context :
As stated in PuRe 1, and confirmed in PGP-4 we have gathered data to optimize the distribution of PAL for deposits with February data. We’re a bit late this time and a 4th adjustment should appear 10-15 days after the token is transferable.
Reminder : The LM campaign was created to push the deposit pools to proposal threshold, this goal hasn’t been reached yet, but the stkAave pool is still growing exponentially and we want to use this opportunity to make palStkAave the default wrapper.
The StkAave pool more than doubled in size again towering at 57,152 stkAave and still not slowing down (we miss you aave-chan.eth :/).
Allocate another 20k PAL / month on the Curve v2 palStkAave pool ;
Remove deposit incentives for COMP, AAVE & IDLE pools ;
Extend the LM campaign for until at least May for the stkAave pool;
Rationale :
We want to keep supporting the explosive growth of the stkAave pool and focus BD on it as we believe we’re building something truly great for the Aave community.
By raising incentives on integrations such as our Curve v2 pool we will push out capital on integrations and let people evolve in the ecosystem we’re building for palStkAave.
You might notice we are also slowly reducing mining rewards on Paladin Lending as we get ready to release mining rewards on Warden (should sync up with the v1.1 release) and preparing for the locking incentive campaign.
Means :
None outside of gas spendings to adjust mining output.
Yes, initially we were supposed to distribute 250,000 PAL / month on the deposit side + 120,000 on the borrow side. Instead we’re going to 150,000 on deposit, TBD (still doing the simulations for the locking incentives) and TBD for Warden.
“This is an optimistic vote, do not vote if you agree with changes.”
How are we to reach the quorum with a positive answer if supportive voters are told to not vote? Or is quorum ignored for this vote? Maybe I missed it but I think the concept of “optimistic voting” would require more explaining.
There was a bug when Snapshot was published. Apologies, we couldn’t change it afterwards and have been under extreme pressure with everything that is being released in the next few weeks.
No worries, I was surprised to see it but now with the context, I understand; thanks for the quick clarification. I just voted yes on Snapshot, we can still get this through if we mobilize a few of the other main delegates.
Good luck with the LBP, I’ll be following closely & see you soon for the marathon @Kogaroshi@Figue
