FeedProjects
Developers
Settings
🎉 A new chapter begins: Boardroom has joined Agora
Learn more
protocol logo
Explore / Projects
stargatefi

Proposals

Members

Information

Create Proposal

stargatefi

ProposalsMembersInformation
Proposal
Back to Proposals
closedEnded 4 years ago · Snapshot (Offchain)

SIP #10 - Increase Incentive For Balancing Transfers

By 0xE2D4...Aa4709

Issue Statement

The Stargate pools are currently imbalanced, and there is not enough incentive to complete balancing transfers. Two key areas to address:

  • The eqRewards are currently distributed to all transfers when a source pool is in deficit, whether it’s a $1 or $1M transfer. Rather than subsidizing small transfers, these eqRewards should be reserved for significant balancing transfers. Additionally, eqRewards should be reserved for material deficits, accelerating growth on the eqFeePool.

  • The protocol should not charge 6 bps on balancing transfers. The protocol makes insignificant revenue on these balancing transfers, and the high hurdle rate of 6 bps significantly eats into a balancing transfer’s incentive. A quick breakdown:

  • To date, the protocol has generated $1.03M in baseline fees (both LP:4.5 bps & protocol: 1.5 bps)

  • Transfers from pools that are in significant deficit (Assets in Pool / Total Liquidity Provided <50%) to pools in surplus (Assets in Pool / Total Liquidity Provided > 100%) have generated $30K (~2.9% of revenue from baseline fees).

  • Transfers from pools in material deficit (Assets in Pool / Total Liquidity Provided < 60%) to pools in surplus have generated $41.5K (~4% of revenue from baseline fees).

  • This does not include the large opportunity cost due to an imbalanced system, which may easily exceed the 4% in protocol revenue.

  • Additionally, the protocol team should build out an API that allows the public to see a list of the active, profitable balancing transfers that are available within Stargate.

Solution

Implement a new eqRewards function

New criteria:

  • Assets in Pool / Total Liquidity Provided < 75 %
  • Transfer amount > 2% of deficit
  • Transfers eligible for eqRewards still receive their pro rata share of the eqFeePool based on the deficit filled (eqRewards = eqFeePool*(transferAmount/poolDeficit)

Phase out baseline fee for balancing transfers

First, the protocol should define balancing transfers as all transfers that meet the following criteria:

  • The source pool is in material deficit:
  • Source Pool Assets / Source Pool Liquidity Provided < 60%
  • The transfer would not reduce the pathway balance below the intermediate reserve level of the pathways ideal balance:
  • currentPathwayBalance - transferAmount > Intermediate Reserve Level * idealPathwayBalance
  • Because the source chain does not know the state of the destination chain’s pools, the protocol should infer balancing transfers based on the state of the pathways.

There should be two baseline fee phase outs for balancing transfers:

  • Baseline Fee Phase Out 1
  • Criteria: A balancing transfer where Source Pool Assets / Source Pool Liquidity Provided is between 60% and 50%

Baseline Fee: Original Baseline Fee * (1 - (.60-(Pool Assets/Pool LP))/.1)

  • Baseline Fee Phase Out 2
  • Criteria: Balancing transfer where Pool Assets/Pool LP < 50% Baseline Fee: 0 bps

Success

Success would be measured by bringing more balance to Stargate’s unified liquidity.

Execution

The Stargate protocol team would need to update the Stargate Fee Library to reflect these changes.

Time & Costs

Dev work: 3-4 days

Summary

  • The Stargate protocol needs to increase the incentive for balancing transfers by: Reserving eqRewards for true balancing transfers rather than subsidizing low transfer amounts
  • Phase out the protocol baseline transfer fee for balancing transfers
Continue Reading
Connect Wallet to Add Note
0
Votes 2400
VoterCast PowerVote & Rationale
0x310C...F1864f
5.924M

Yes - Incentivize balancing

0xC6a8...C0EFc6
3.394M

Yes - Incentivize balancing

0xe0B2...F3ACAd
105,372

Yes - Incentivize balancing

0x646B...86b11c
84,858

Yes - Incentivize balancing

0x2003...d153B6
72,560

Yes - Incentivize balancing

SHOW MORE
VOTE POWER
0
Connect Wallet
Proposal Status
  • Wed June 15 2022, 08:00 pmVoting Period Starts
  • Sun June 19 2022, 08:00 pmEnd Voting Period
Current Results

1-Yes - Incentivize balancing

10.207M

99.77%

2-No - Leave it alone

16,405.84

0.16%

3-Abstain - IDK

6,827.133

0.07%
Quorum 10.23M/7.393M
DocumentationBrandingContact Us
Home
This Project is Currently Disabled

If you would like to enable it, please checkout below.

Boardroom Subscription

Sign up for an individual subscription (access all projects on the platform)

Subscribe
Enable Project

Enable the entire project for every user

Enable Project
Contact Us