APGP 2: Enable gauges for APW rewards

Governance Proposals (SGP) Approved APGPs
1

Summary:
This proposal is about creating a gauge for the community to distribute APW rewards.

Context:
The liquidity mining program started two months ago, with a 2M APW distribution each quarter. However until now, the rewards were split fairly between all pools (PT/Underlying and PT/FYT).

Enabling a gauge to vote on APW rewards distribution each week would kickstart the APWAR, as every project would have an interest to buy and lock APW to boost their own pool rewards.

Rationale:
This proposal is about allowing veAPW holders to vote on the APW rewards distribution across the different pools. Apwine is currently rewarding users on mainnet and Polygon to deposit liquidity in the PT/Underlying and PT/FYT pools.
The total amount of rewards distributed over a week is currently 166.66K APW/week.

If the gauge is approved, the distribution of the 166.66K APW would be decided by veAPW holders every week, who would have the power to allocate a percentage of the rewards on different pools or to return part of the APW to the DAO, which would reduce the current incentives.

Means:
Current liquidity mining program: 166.66K APW/week

Implementation:
Setup of the new UI to vote on the gauge.

Voting options:
Yes, enable gauges for APW rewards
No, don’t enable gauges for APW rewards
Abstain

Should the DAO enable gauges for APW rewards ?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

5 Likes
2

Really good proposal.
Just 2 questions :

  1. People with liquidity deposited in DEXs (Comethswap, Sushiswap, Quickswap) & people with liquidity deposited in Toekmak have rigths to vote ?
  2. The voting power will be proportional with the Locked time (like for the Winelisting vote) ?
1 Like
3

Both of those questions can be answered by the governance framework that was voted in earlier: https://gov.apwine.fi/t/apip-0-apwine-governance-framework-proposal/

1 & 2. " Another important point i forgot to add is the multiplier on the voting power when locking your APW in veAPW:

2 Likes
4

First I would like to admit that I am very excited by this proposal for the sole fact that it would start up the APWAR! Also, the buy pressure from such a situation is being undervalued in the tokens current evaluation and this APGP is of such extreme importance to improving the protocols value prospect. :muscle: :muscle:

Changes you could make to the proposal for the implementation would be setting up a voting mechanic that’s similar to how wine listings are done. I am against any vote-to-earn mechanic like Tokemak because it reduces the incentives that bribing could bring on. Other than the implementation change of using the winelisitng vote template, the proposal is great and I look forward to voting for it in the snapshot. :+1: :+1:

1 Like
5

Can you develop this part ? I understand the mechanism “vote-to-earn” like Votium or Tokemak, but I don’t understand why it reduce the incentives that bribing could be on ?

Thank you in advance for reanding me :slight_smile:

1 Like
6

Hey thanks for your feedback !

Actually i’ll need to double check but i think only veAPW will be taken into account for the gauges, which should increase the locking rate.

Yes the voting power will be proportional

1 Like
7

On my thinking about why vote-earn is bad, my reasoning was that people are lazy. When they lock their apw, they do so because they want the % apr that comes with it, so adding a vote-to-earn mechanic would lead to users being less likely to lock their apw up.

The reduction of bribing rewards was from confusion on my part, as I want more apw to be locked so as to increase its price appreciation. Thus I am against vote-to-earn for the fact that it makes voting more active for users and thus pushes them away from wanting to lock their apw, not that it reduces bribing incentives so that’s my bad. :frowning_face:

9

I don’t understand why you think vote-to-earn will reduce the interest for people to lock their APW. For me it’s absolutly the inverse.

→ 1 $APW → 1 vote.
→ 1 APW locked for 2 Year : 104 vote.

SO if you lock, you give a x104 to your bribing reward.
I think every part of the system earn :
→ The DAO : Because people vote on snapshot and consult regularly the Snapshot and, if theiy aren’t used to take a look at the Gov. Forum , they can see proposal & vote for governance.
→ Users : they earn more with their APW.
→ The protocol who want more liquidity on Apwine (they can bribe)
→ Apwine

Or I missunderstand soemthing ?

1 Like
11

If voting is required to earn it means the only people locking their apw are those who are going to vote. This is technically great for governance, however, it pushes away more passive users who wish to only lock their apw and leave it at that. We want more people to lock rather than only a small pool of “power users”.

In short, voting to earn will thus reduce the amount of locked apw as users do not like having to constantly stay active with their investment and instead like setting and forgetting. Especially if their votes do not make up that much of the total.

Qi DAO is a great example of this since users can lock their qi for vote power and earn rewards passively and they’ll have the possible option to vote with bribes to earn even more. That’s how they have more than 50% of their circulating supply locked up.

1 Like