New emissions have failed

The change to emissions have failed. Unsurprisingly, the price has decreased by 2/3 after the emissions increased by a factor of 3. TVL hasn’t changed and DILL APY has decreased. There needs to be less emissions. I’ve been saying this for months now and others agree. Since increasing emissions has clearly failed why is it still being done?

1 Like

Hi pipickle - the increased emissions will be used for incentivizing the Polygon strategies when it is live.

I don’t get how this is incentivizing if the price dropped by 2/3? The nominal amount given out in $ is still the same…If the objective is to give out more to dilute others then yes the goal is being accomplished but the public should be aware instead of framing this as “incentives”. Just my thoughts. I’ve already accepted the losses on this project.

The whole market is down since we increased emissions, and polygon, which the new emissions are for, is not even live yet. So it’s a bit premature to call it a failure, and if it does fail, we can vote to cut emissions again anyways.

I don’t think it’s good to be increasing and decreasing emissions so often. Also, deployment on Polygon seems to be a non factor now. Gas is low and our TVL has dropped or is the same. How much money are you all thinking is on Polygon that isn’t on Mainnet? I still have yet to see any data that shows why exactly a 3x increase to emissions was needed or why the original reducing emission schedule was changed. The “modifying” tail end emissions post just says that we will be noncompetitive giving out less Pickle which makes no sense since the nominal value given out in dollars is still the same. I really don’t get it.

Look, if polygon fails, we will vote to cut emissions, there is no issue decreasing it after increasing it, accepting a mistake is better than just accepting crazy dilution for no benefit pal. But polygon will not fail.

1 Like

What is the criteria for failure though because apparently we disagree on this. If the purpose of the increased emissions is to increase TVL, you don’t need to go to Polygon to see that it failed. Additionally once Polygon jars are opened, what are we saying is a success? 100% increase in TVL? 200%? Better yet, what’s considered a failure? 50% increase in TVL? The changes being made are being done arbitrarily and I know you guys won’t listen but new investors will have 0 confidence in a project that was hacked, changes it’s rules every other week, and is controlled by a couple big wallets.

imo the decision to triple emissions several weeks before deploying on Polygon was a mistake. I understand the notion behind increasing emissions in order to draw in new users on Polygon, but what was the point of doing it so early? Seems pointless.

It is also important to consider what inflation means; it is an indirect tax on all the holders of the asset. Because more PICKLE is being printed, each existing PICKLE is worth less. Therefore, the incentivization of the new platform is being directly paid for by all holders of PICKLE and/or DILL. Tripling inflation is a bold move - imagine if a major government did this. I understand that the inflation is temporary, but really, how much public interest will Pickle Finance gain by deploying on Polygon? I have little familiarity with Defi on Polygon but I have a feeling that even doubling user interest is a very lofty goal, and that seems about what should be achieved as a trade-off for tripling inflation for over half a year.

IMO if this fails, in the future, we should focus more on “marketing”. For example, the recent “partnership” with Sushi. Stuff like that is huge and validates Pickle in the public eye; which is incredibly important because it seems like few people have gotten over the old Jar hack. Yes, the gas fees on Ethereum may be deterring some users, but I think what deters the most is the sour taste of that hack and the low level of trust people have in Pickle.

Of course, money talks, and if ultimately deploying more Jars on Polygon doesn’t necessarily increase user interest a bunch but does increase total revenue substantially it will of course in the end be worth it. I think there are still too many unknowns to say if increasing inflation will have been worth it in the long run, though I do stand by the idea that increasing it so early was a bit strange.


Good points. In reference to the rewards bringing in more users. I’m pretty certain the number of wallets interacting with Pickle once Polygon jars open will not increase much. It will be the same current users just on Polygon for cheaper transactions. I say this with certainty because the number of wallets on Etherscan have barely budged since the increase to emissions.

It wasn’t planned to increase emissions ‘several’ weeks before polygon though, things got in the way, including family issues to the guy leading the polygon expansion

Polygon is an entirely new ecosystem, with different folk on there, so judging the increase by Etherscan is not gonna give you any meaningful results

I don’t think it’s entirely new. It’s L2 so people are bridging from ETH. If they weren’t in Pickle before, I doubt they will deposit on Polygon. It’s just going to be our same users who don’t want to pay higher gas fees. I’m not sure how much money you all think is on Polygon but it’s not more than currently available. I look forward to being right about this again and TVL not even doubling.

Pickle is in desperate need of exposure. Advertising,articles… reach out to people. Constant change of emisions is making me nervous I get a filling that a people in charge of this are not quite sure how to go on. I’m still deciding wether to move on or not.
Ok project has been hacked so what,almost every other project has been hacked,even exchanges has been hacked.Move on and tell people pickle finance is here.

Trust me buddy, I spent a lot of time telling people about Pickle in the beginning. Many of them lost money in the hack. They were trying to recoup their losses via holding their farmed Pickle but the constant emissions changes will ensure the price stays down and they never recover. That’s all part of the new plan though so my advice would be to get out now if your losses are minimal because it’s not going higher any time soon.

We have new emissions because the DAO voted for them, 40% of pickles are locked for DILL - many people are very optimistic about pickle and its future, but you guys are talking before the polygon farms launch which is a tad premature.

I recommend you all join the discord to keep up to date with what happens in the project.

The DAO is a joke. A couple large wallets control the vote. I’m not sure why quadratic voting was removed considering the Dill mechanism is a tad more Sybil resistant.

The case for the increase was yaxis which clearly crashed (as expected). But obviously people who don’t care about the price of the token will vote to print more. This is why these actions need to be data driven. If you increase TVL, big deal. This community is overly obsessed with TVL. How much are you making off of that TVL and what Pickle price can be sustained with buybacks are the important questions. Since you all have increased emissions by a factor of 3, the TVL needs to triple just to get us back to where you were. This will not happen. At most you will see a 100% increase from Polygon.

I have checked out the Discord and recall a push to use the forum.

There are 651 DILL holders that form the DAO and the voting power is highly distributed. The biggest wallet owns 7.5% of DILL and the top 10 wallets combined reach 42%. Compared to many major DAO projects, it is clear that a couple of large wallets do not control the vote here.

The yaxis example given was not regarding the price gains nor the goal of increasing the price of Pickle, which seems to be your main concern, but rather the gains they made in TVL, which is what drives revenue which is what drives distribution to DILL holders.

1 Like

This is just factually incorrect in terms of the DAO. Look at the vote numbers. I have attached screenshots. 3 wallets controlled the vote for emissions increases with over 51%.

I understand the purpose of the yaxis example it’s just a terrible example to follow because TVL has stayed the same and token price has dropped by 2/3. I’m not sure why you all chose to follow yaxis of all protocols in terms of tokenomics but it has failed in the objective.

And another 38% of votes were also in favour, so I don’t get your point? If the margin was 51:49 and those three wallets were the only ones in favour then I could see some point to your argument here.

Our tokenomics and the emission change are a long way from the one yaxis implemented, not least because they started from zero but also increased supply some 10x over a year. Our change is minimal - the 0.3 per block emission is exactly what it was a couple of months ago, we’re just resetting to that level.

You were debating if the DAO is controlled by a couple wallets which I showed through highlighting the 3 wallets have over 51% of the vote. I’m not sure what your point is with stating smaller wallets also voted. THE POINT IS THAT 3 WALLETS CONTROLLED THE VOTE.

Minimal is subjective. The supply was doubled and there is not decisive end to printing. Just TBD until the next 3 wallet controlled vote.