Add ETH/WBTC uniswap LP to the jars selection Proposal_

Question about proposals, pertinence, and code…

Is the proposal “Add ETH/WBTC uniswap LP to the jars selection”, once programed, supposed to peg stablecoins?

If yes, could someone explain to me how?

If no, given that the proposal is likely to be approved (100% yes at the moment), will the development team code it?

janFi No

So… at the moment all proposals made are a community suggestion, the Devs retain a veto for the time being. They want to ensure the foundation is strong before they hand off full control to the community. Anyone can make a proposal so it’s not alway indicative for the community sentiment, but the devs are very open to suggestions and ideas to make better.

1 Like

I’d prefer if we had BTC Stablecoin pairs rather than a WBTC-ETH pair but I understand where @janFi_No is coming from as we have a pJar for every other UNI pair currently offered.

1 Like

Seems like a reasonable suggestion. Get some of the UNI liq over.
And all the other UNI pairs are on, why not this one?

What it is supposed to do for the peg?

1 Like

Perhaps simply act as advertising for the project by bringing liquidity and awareness of it. Almost like a loss-leader to bring in more business.

I would prefer, like Dr. Egglpant , to see BTC Stablecoin pairs or if you would make publicity to the project and extend the purpose of the project try to peg other pairs like wBTC-BTC for example, and so on. The project will still have a clear purpose, I don’t think it will be the case if we add any pairs, the project will become like many other ones

1 Like

I think we can both agree that additional exposure and draws to bring in liq and participants is a good thing? This could be one tool for this purpose.

I think we can both agree that additional exposure and draws to bring in liq and participants is a good thing? -> yes and a clear direction :slight_smile:

So far, 98% voting to approve this proposal. So there seems to be community support of the idea.

So, nothing new! It is the purpose of my intervention to ask why a proposal with no regard of the peg gains adoption. We will see, if it is coded, if in the long run the multiplication of that kind of proposals can help people to identify clearly Pickle

I was not aware of this proposal.
Anyways, I don’t think this will go through, Pickle team is still figuring out how to do governance

And this proposal does nothing for the Pickle vision - in my honest opinion


I voted against it. This seems just like the Harvest model (not to disparage them) where we simply throw all token pairs at the wall and see what sticks.

Not exactly a strategy, but more a desperation attempt.


I’m torn on this one.

I totally agree that more TVL is good for the platform, but I also see the merits in sticking to our “brand”. It’s very similar to the choices that real world businesses have to make. Do you go with the P.T. Barnum idea: “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right" and just get as much money on the platform as possible? or do you make sure that growth is sustainable and that there’s clear product differentiation in an otherwise crowded marketplace.

I’m curious to hear what other folks have to say about this.

Just remember: We are gaining widespread popularity not because of our jars and pickle emissions (which are similar to other platforms and put us in a crowded space), but because we differentiated ourselves from day one as being focused on a specific “problem” and strategy. If we stay focused on stable coin arbitrage, we have the potential to attract even more of the top minds in defi to help us build and execute innovative new strategies.


Yeah, there are basically 5 different types of LPs (realistically 4).

Risk profile from LEAST risk to MOST risky:

a. stable/stable (e.g. USDC/USDT) best for LPs since low volatility, but low fee revenue

b. linked/linked (e.g. renBTC/wBTC) a bit more risky, but they eventually try to match each other

c. Volatile/stable (e.g. ETH/USDC) better for fee revenue but IL increase due to volatility

d. NonStable/NonStable (e.g. ETH/PICKLE) most volatile and can cause sleepless nights if you don’t know what you are doing for how to manage risk (i.e. Degen pools).

e. Uncorrelated pair (e.g. Heads/Tails)
This one is merely just listed for reference as no one would realistically join it since that’s like putting money on both sides of a coin toss and paying a fee (gas) to win. Lose/Lose no matter how many times you flip. You will find this on betting pools where it closes and pays out after the results are known.

The current Pickle ecosystem LPs and Jar strategies are primarily focused on type-C, with only 1 type-D as our primary source of overall pool rewards and liquidity across all others.

Not sure if adding another type-D would add value or merely complicate the reward mechanisms we already have in place and intend to grow further.


I’m curious to hear what the devs have to say about this one. They would have a better handle on how this integrates with their master plan for the platform.

1 Like