Increasing Allocation of Pickle Rewards to Bitcoin CRV Pool

Governance
#1

Hi all,

Th current allocation of Pickle rewards are as follows:

PICKLE/ETH: 70%
USDT/ETH: 4%
USDC/ETH: 4%
DAI/ETH: 4%
renBTCCRV: 5%
3poolCRV: 4%
WBTC/ETH: 5%
pDAI: 4%

I am proposing increasing the rewards of the renBTCCRV pool to 7% from its current 5%. The 2% increase can come from a removal from the PICKLE/ETH pool or another pool we can discuss.

The logic behind this is as follows:

With the possible removal of withdrawal fees new LPs will feel comfortable coming into Pickle and TVL should increase. One of the largest and most underrepresented groups of TVL are Bitcoiners. Bitcoin money represents a huge tranche of capital that is under-serviced in the DeFi space. Bitcoiners are notoriously skittish so to give them the incentives to park money with Pickle would prove very helpful.

As of now Bitcoiners have very few options of earning yield. They can keep their money with Curve (~3%), they can boost their Curve (~7%), They can park it with Harvest (~10%), and that’s it.

Enter Pickle.

By truly servicing this community Pickle has an opportunity to uniquely position themselves as the home for Bitcoin in DeFi. This presents a fantastic marketing opportunity as for the few farms that do support Bitcoin, it’s mostly an afterthought.

By increasing the Pickle Rewards and (hopefully) the removal of the Withdrawal fees, Pickle can cater to this new tranche of capital and have an incredible marketing narrative they can run with. This can prove to become Pickle’s key differentiator.

I’ll leave you with Pickle’s mission statement that I find we all love:
“Highest yield. Lowest risk. Longest time.™️”

Let’s discuss.

TLDR: Increase Pickle Rewards for renBTCcrv pool 2%. Great marketing opportunity. Unlock new tranche of capital from Bitcoiners.

9 Likes
[PIP-17] Re-allocate PICKLE rewards
[RFC] Re-allocation of PICKLE Rewards
[RFC] Re-allocation of PICKLE Rewards
#2

This one deserve more rewards and marketing. Harvest has 90 Million renBTC giving only 4% … we need to market renBTC to get more TVL. It seems to have lot of potential and I am in favor of this recommendation.

1 Like
#3

Thanks @Dr.Eggplant for the well thought and written post. In my view I agree, there must be a large value of BTC gaining dust and waiting on the sideline looking for conservative and safe yield. I do not understand the risks of wrapping BTC yet completely, but if we want to look beyond our current strategies this seems like a logical step forward. Will follow this thread to see what others have to say!

3 Likes
#4

I agree! Bitcoiners are extremely underrepresented in farming protocols at the moment.
I think it goes without saying that a potential increase in BTC jar rewards, would be well suited to scoop up Bitcoiners who may no longer have a home…

if uniswap chooses to end their UNI liquidity mining <---- this has huge potential.

That’s hundreds of millions worth of BTC liquidity that could be up for grabs. I think this could be a great opportunity to attract major TVL into the Pickle platform just in time as we transition to a performance fee model.

Even if uni liquidity mining is extended, as @Dr.Eggplant mentioned, there are massive inflows of wrapped BTC making its way onto the ETH network. It is incumbent upon us to attract these brave new souls and find a place for them to stack additional sats safely and responsibly.
As for the additional reward allocations, I can’t really say one way or another, what the fairest increase and where those points should be taken from. I do believe ETH/Pickle needs to be protected as much as possible as they take on significant risks and are the backbone of this community.
But regardless, I do believe this is smart thinking that should be pushed forward quickly before other protocols realize its potential.

3 Likes
#5

Is this a potential boosted pool if crv passes whitelist?

#6

Less than a week ago Pickle/Eth farmers had a 5% haircut. It was supposed to be a once in a lifetime reduction. And now you suggest another 2% cut. No way Jose. You cut and I take my stash elsewhere.

#7

I think this is a valid concern and as I said, we should make sure any decision we make keeps all community members, including power picklers’, best interest in mind!

2 Likes
#8

I agree with this proposal. This will drive a lot of TVL.

1 Like
#9

I am for boosting reward % for this pool, but I don’t think it should come from the ETH/PICKLE pool.

What other pool is “saturated” and can afford a 2% cut (maybe even more)?

4 Likes
#10

I’m totally cool with it coming from any of the other pools.

ETH/PICKLE pool is one suggestion. I would also suggest perhaps 1% off of the DAI pools instead.

And I’m definitely cool with “maybe even more”.

3 Likes
#11

I support and agree with this proposal.

IF we were going to allocate more, we would need to start determining by some means what range of expected TVL this might generate on its own. If the percentage is higher than say 7% of TVL locked, it could be justified for a higher percentage.

Removing rewards from the PICKLE/ETH pool is NOT an ideal starting point for this.
The “Skimming approach”, as suggested by The Purple Pickle, starting with the DAI pools, and then perhaps others if the value is estimated to be justified is a solid starting point.

Perhaps starting with 7%, then a scheduled increase as it’s percentage of TVL grows?

3 Likes
#12

I agree that % could be scraped off pDai. BTC demand outways stablecoin demand because there are so few options. Much easier for users to find better stablecoin options currently than BTC especially once vault withdrawal fees are lifted which frees them up to adios over to another farm with higher %.

Is it too premature to consider shifting Uni pairs % away as their coming to a close in a couple of weeks (not sure where the gov vote is on this at uniswap - if there’s a chance of a liquidity mining extension)?
Although lowering their % and lifting fees at the same time might just invite uni farm LP depositors to leave…

I am definitely for “even more” % for BTC, absolutely. This could be a game-changer if we’re quick to act and not let the competition beat us to the punch.

2 Likes
#13

I’m in favour of this proposal and I do agree that Pickle/Eth LPs shouldn’t fork the bill. A lot of crypto is going to continue consolidating into ETH/BTC/STABLES over the next while and being able to lead the pack with strategies for these tokens will be a strong play as we strive to lead/grow. I’m curious if there’s a way (given there’s enough support for this proposal) to implement the appropriate changes to coincide with the boosting/whitelisting to offset the increase in renBTC%. It seems people are in agreement with "scraping off’ pDAI jar as well. The exact combination could be decided through a voting poll with multiple options.

3 Likes
#14

I agree in substance, I understand that owners of BTC / WBTC / RenBTC may be looking for more interesting returns than what currently exists.

As far as I’m concerned, I don’t have BTC because I don’t need it, I don’t trade and don’t have opportunities to spend it.

I am against the idea of ​​reducing the allocation allocated to pDAI and/or PICKLE Power farm.

pDAI has seen its TVL increase ~ 14x since the farm’s launch, and its current APY is arguably the highest in the market with what Stabilize (STBZ) offers.

The withdrawal fees are likely to be withdrawn very soon, which will hopefully bring a new wave of capital.
The distribution of this capital will inform us about the expectations of investors.

In the coming weeks, Uniswap could stop the distribution of UNI tokens, and we should know about Curve’s decision regarding Pickle’s whitelisting.

The integration of PICKLE stackers in the counting of votes is envisaged could be voted soon.
I’m seeing more people waiting about this rather than queries about changing yield allocations.

I think that we should wait until these deadlines before making a decision submitted to the vote of the community.

Once we know more, we may wonder why and how to change the distribution structure of returns:

  • Should we support Jars CRV if we are not whitelisted?
  • Should we support Uniswap Jars if they are no longer boosted?
  • How are the Jar TVLs distributed since the withdrawal of withdrawal fees?
  • …?

This is only my opinion, I see no reason to rush other than for WTC-RenBTC owners to get high returns quickly. These are currently few compared to those potentially to come.

3 Likes
#15

I’m also in favor of increasing rewards to BTC pools.

I don’t think the % should come off PICKLE/ETH of DAI.

Have we considered deprecating the USDT pool to spread those points around? Yes, I know it’s the largest stablecoin, but it’s also the one most likely to tank crypto, depending on some court cases in NYC and the Bitfinex moneyprinter… thoughts?

2 Likes
#16

Agreed, we should do everything we can to engage the bitcoin community :slight_smile:

1 Like
#18

I think the idea here is great, but should be deferred until the end of UNI farming which ends potentially in 15 days. The outcome of the continuation or end of those farms will give us a bigger pool of rewards to work with and a better understanding of the topology of our offerings moving forward.

I strongly disagree with the idea to remove any percentage of rewards from the pDAI farm as this is a step backward from the PIP we just passed. Essentially I read this as “I want more farm for myself, and not what is good for the protocol.”

It should be noted that our renBTCCRV jar actually grew around 60% in the last few days so I don’t think we are in great need of this currently. So that being said, let’s have a look at what happens in either scenario.

Scenario 1: UNI Farming Continues

UNI emissions will likely be drastically reduced in this scenario and thus APY and TVL of these jars and farms will likely drop. It is reasonable in this case to drop PICKLE emissions as well to draw TVL to newer or higher earning strategies - or target audiences like the renBTCCRV farm.

Scenario 2: UNI Farming Stops

Open and shut case here, we remove all PICKLE emissions and jars are no longer functional. There is no reason to incentivize these anymore.

Conclusion

These UNI jars will essentially be offerings that are no longer (or lightly) pickled. This will free up around 13-17% of our PICKLE emissions going this route. This gives us a lot more room to be creative with our emissions and also target potentially new jars / farms with emissions too! (Looking at you BOND farming cc: @yyctrader).

We should use even 3% of this to bump renBTCCRV to 8%, and still have 10-14% allocation for new jars! This means assuming around 4-5% allocation of PICKLE for a new jar we can introduce 2-3 new jars with incentives attached - this seems like a better overall path for the future.

These numbers are all kind of cooked up as there would need to be a discussion moving forward should people like this idea.

TLDR

We aren’t really in need of more BTC incentives, they will be good for sure - let’s let UNI die off and revisit allocation and stay away from pDAI rewards!

Disclaimer: I have no stake in any jar but the BTC jar :slight_smile:

6 Likes
#19

(I had to remake this poll as it wouldn’t let me add an option after the first 5 minutes)

Hey there guys, it seems that a consensus has been reached that it would be a good idea to allocate a few extra % of LP rewards to the Bitcoin pool to attract this additional TVL.

I am creating this poll to reach consensus on where these rewards should be drawn from. A few options were suggested including: DAI, and TETHER pools. The overall view was that people didn’t want the Pickle Pool touched.

Can you please vote for your choice so we have proof in a poll form? Thanks!

Which pool should we draw from to move LP rewards to BTC?
  • DAI
  • TETHER
  • PICKLE POOL
  • NO CHANGE

0 voters

#20

Great suggestion @Dr.Eggplant - thanks for your ongoing contributions to pickle!

I just want to point out that, while we definitely want to grow TVL in our renBTC jar, the capital in that jar is of less value to our protocol than the capital in other more profitable jars (based on the new profit-driven fee structure). Attracting a variety of asset classes helps maintain the long-term viability of our platform but it’s actually secondary to the central goal of creating driving value to PICKLE holders.

I also think it’s unlikely we’ll attract much new capital to the UNI farming strategies with the end / reduction on the horizon. As such, I’d be cool with winding down emissions to these farms proactively or waiting for 15 days. If we choose to wind these down immediately, I’d recommend taking a small bite out of all the UNI farming jars to redistribute to renBTC so that new distribution would be:

PICKLE/ETH: 70%
USDT/ETH: 3%
USDC/ETH: 3%
DAI/ETH: 3%
renBTCCRV: 9%
3poolCRV: 4%
WBTC/ETH: 4%
pDAI: 4%

There are a couple variations on this that could work as well. We could preserve the 4% to the WBTC / ETH and keep renBTC at 8%.

Really excited about the future of yield farming strategies. @yyctrader 's suggestion to get a $BOND pool going is absolute fire but it’s not a sure thing yet - Side note, if anyone knows of other “vaults” that are using a BOND strategy, please let me know! -

4 Likes
#21

We get 13.25x more in fees per dollar locked in the DAI pool than the BTC pool.

I would suggest to reduce the BTC incentives and give them to DAI where we earn 13x more in fees from the TVL in the jar.

Edit:
Earlier when I did the math the BTC jar showed only the LP reward which was 0.8%, now I realize the 3% crv reward was not loaded.
Right now the renBTCCRV jar has 4% apy while DAI has 13%, this is 3.25x

2 Likes