[Implemented] Scale down LP rewards

Proposal Structure

  • Title: [DRAFT] Scale down LP rewards
  • Author(s): @gxmxni
  • Related Discussions:
  • Submission Date: November 25

Body Paragraphs:

Simple Summary: Reduce LP rewards to 300K tokens monthly.

Abstract: Currently, we offer 1.7M LP rewards monthly. This is too large. I propose that we take this number down to 300K for the time being, prior to the HashVerse release.

Currently, accounting for 5% HFT APY, this would sustain about 35M in TVL, which is more than enough given our capital efficiency and the fact that most capital is private.

Moreover, pools will soon start giving out organic yield (from trading). These 300K can be skewed toward pools that generate less organic yield (e.g. stablecoin pools). Similar to how it is currently done, the team should monitor liquidity and dictate those weights so that HFT is distributed where it is most needed.


APYs are unreasonably high, HFT emissions are also high.

Specification & Rationale: See above.

Benefits (Pros):

  • Lower Emissions
  • Higher incentive for Market Makers to deposit organic yield in order to maintain TVL
  • Moving to reasonable APYs

Downside (Cons):

  • Some LPs will potentially leave; however, the ones who stay are more motivated to contributed to the protocol

Voting: Yes for this to be implemented, No for it to not be implemented


sorry but I vote No for this one for the following reasons:

1- for me and other like me who bought HFT above $1 this is the only way to recover some losses and it will take years at current APY so what if it is brought down to 5% it will take decades ! at least if you implement this initiative, keep the high APYs for HFT only.

2- LP is one of the most important factors of success, not only for volume but also for number of available tokens

3- simple calculation for APYs for NFT rewards will show that it was much more than LP rewards APY, especially for those who got 30K to sell at TGE


I strongly agree with this proposal - current APYs are too high and we can always revisit later. Seeing organic yield would be fantastic :raised_hands:

Did you really have to bring NFT holders to support your argument? This is totally unrelated.

I’m sorry that you have speculated on the price of HFT and it didn’t go as planned - but we cannot as a community compensate for this. This proposal supports HFT from dropping further.

Once the HashVerse is up and running and we got more utility for HFT we can revisit this.

@Alustath while I understand your sentiment, here are some counter points:

  • if you’re in it long term, you should believe in HFT
  • the current APYs are unreasonably high; no sustainable product should ever yield that much

I think this proposal, in a nutshell is:

  • reduce the yields to market reasonable values that still have upside
  • save on emissions while at it

this is correct for stable coins, no where else you get these APYs, however, for HFT it is a normal practice to have higher APYs for the project’s native token

I brought up the NFT subject as a comparison between this proposal and the NFT vesting proposal, NFT team there fought hard against it to protect their investments, even though they got much more APY that what we are hoping for here (about 300% for NFTs vs. 30% only for LPs) !

in addition, after all, if I get back my capital in the coming years, I would’ve gotten out of the project at break-even while they would’ve gotten out with 3X to 5X profits !

Absolutely yesssssss

I totally agree with this proposal :white_check_mark:

I support the idea of [ Lower Emissions of HFTs ]. :+1:

So we will have 5 % HFT APY ; Did you compare it with other similar pools in other protocols?
Do we have some comparison statics here that might help? :thinking:

I’m asking generally is it Motivating Enough for a user to Choose Hashflow’s pools among other different protocols pools?

Before passing this proposal :point_right: Respectfully I’m asking you to make a quick research about Hashflow’s Competitors Pools and check their APYs.
For instance if they are all offering an average 5 % APY, you can increase it a little bit more like 8 % to make it more Appealing. :dizzy:

Overally I support scaling down LP rewards & I Vote (YES).

1 Like

Agree in reduce the LP rewards, but from 1.7m HFT to 300k HFT is a big jump, i think its too agressive. in my opinion 500k HFT/month is a good number.

Curious how you came up with that number? I gave the reasoning for mine above. IMO any increase in emissions has to be thoroughly justified.

Nothing special, use 5 as an integer is more confortable :joy:,

also, with 300k token/month ,Hashflow is offering a reasonable APY ,but it wont be super attractive,so i think we should find a number that is a bit higer than other platforms but meantime cant be too much .

sample APY from a competitor

another sample:

a third example:

I am down with this proposal and have something to make rewards more juicy while disincentives the short term LPs from withdrawing them and using 30% Max capacity of pools inefficiently.

So the idea is that we implement a penalty system on each pools on HFT rewards. how ?
every LP that is looking to earn HFT yield, should not touch their liquidity for 4 months otherwise they are in subject of a 25%-50%-75%-100% penalty fees each month on their HFT yield (not their LPs). for example

I deposit 10,000$ on one of the pools with 5% APY, in order to receive full HFT APY, I should Provide liquidity at least for 4 months, otherwise :
100% penalty fee on My HFT rewards for withdrawing before 30 days
75% penalty on my HFT Rewards for withdrawing before 60 days
50% penalty on my HFT Rewards for withdrawing before 90 days
25% penalty on my HFT Rewards for withdrawing before 120 days
and by the end of 4th month 0% penalty fees on My HFT rewards OR Full rewards

this way we disincentives short term LPs and will reward more medium/Long term LPs …
we also can increase 300K HFT emissions Ceiling to 420K HFT per month and return back the penalty fees to community treasury. you may also ask where is this number comes from?
based on the proposal on lowering the trading emissions from 1M HFT per month to 350K, Which is 65% down, and your current suggested number which is almost %82 less than 1.7M HFT. I found a balanced number in between, so I suggest a 75% decrease from 1.7M which will be 425K HFT per month. off course the real emission number will be less than 425K cause the penalty fees will be deducted from it. so at the end the numbers will almost reach near!

for a better implementation of the above scenario and Penalty fees We need a statistics of the LP in/outs for the last 9months.

I would agree with this only if:

1- penalties system is applied for all other rewards as well
2- APY for HFT pools is given a priority (25% +)

what would be the benefit of a penalty system on trading rewards?
what does it mean anyway ? :sweat_smile:
explain your idea if you have any :smile:

I mean penalty on vesting of rewards either for trading or NFTs, anyone wants to claim his rewards early would pay a % of the claimed reward