Post-UNI Pickle Rewards + Staking Rewards (Next Steps for Pickle)

With the passing of PIP-16 and 17 I believe Pickle is on a track for success and I believe this momentum should be continued without delay. We can begin discussion on next steps while also monitoring the results of the steps we have taken.

I believe there are three main outstanding roadmap items for Pickle:
1) Immediately re-allocating Pickle rewards from UNI pools to other farms
2) Increasing staking rewards for PICKLE STAKERS (to get into triple digit APYs)
3) Voting rights for Pickle Stakers (although this is less immediately important)

Let me address them one-by-one.

  1. I think @yyctrader has taken a good initiative with his thread (Redirect 10% of Emissions from LP to pJars). I believe we should not hesitate on beginning this discussion. We don’t need to wait 48 hours for a forum vote, then 48 hours for a discord vote, then 48 hours for RFC forum discussions, then 24 hours for snapshot voting, then 24 hours for a timelock. By the time that process is done UNI liquidity will have already found a new home while we’re still discussing. I want to very clearly highlight the importance of timeliness in this. We should begin discussing re-allocation right now.

  2. When we saw the recent run up of PICKLE from $16 to $27 last week this was due to people purchasing PICKLE to receive our fantastic high APY staking rewards (at that time). Once market equilibrium was reached, the buying stopped, and we stabilized around $23 or so, higher than where we began. I would like to see higher staking rewards for PICKLE in the triple digits. If an equilibrium will inevitably be reached, I would rather see a PICKLE Stablecoin of $40 rather than $23. This could be achieved with an increase of staking rewards.

  3. Voting rights for PICKLE STAKERS. There is already a thread on this topic and it’s not immediately time-sensitive. What is time sensitive are points 1 and 2 as UNI farming is coming to an end in one week.

TLDR: We need to begin re-allocating UNI Farm Rewards to other pools ASAP. Now, not later. Time is important and if we don’t act now our lunch will be eaten as UNI farmers look elsewhere for yield. We also need to increase staking rewards for PICKLE stakers and create a higher price floor equilibrium.



Well put @Dr.Eggplant
Agree 100%…we should get the discussion moving asap.


Agree on the UNI emission discussion. I still find it hard to believe that they won’t continue the UNI farming in some shape or form but with the mess their governance is in, it may well end at least for a while.

Also something I’d like to see, but where do you propose the extra incentive comes from? I’d be against using the treasury reserve for this, so the only other avenue is pickle emissions? In which case it kinda just becomes a consideration of point 1?

Also in agreement, I do think it’s worthy of noting that although voting rights for stakers may not seem pressing they can impede the transfer of rewards to other pools (or stakers). In addressing points #1 & #2 we may need to look into giving stakers voting rights sooner rather than later.

1 Like

We are all together! let’s make a proposal!

I agree now is the time to tackle these issues. Maybe we can create a proposal distribution as follows assuming no new jars will be added. The end of emissions for UNI farming jars will open a 17% emission allocation.

Here are the current projected returns from my calculations on the ratio growth of the jars.
This information coupled with our existing push for increasing attractiveness of assets such as BTC can influence our decisions.

Asset 3 day 1 week 1 month
sCRV 12.36% 14.24% 10.50%
3poolCRV 8.09% 7.41% 8.89%
renBTCCRV 2.33% 2.13% 2.83%
cDAI 12.99% 12.72% -

I have omitted all jars that are based on UNI farming for simplicity.

I know how @Dr.Eggplant feels about BTC allocation and its likely a good push and differentiation for us from other protocols.

cAPY = current PICKLE apy
nAPY = new PICKLE apy
tAPY = total FARM apy

Asset Emission Change cAPY nAPY tAPY
renBTCCRV +11% 4.71% ~11.1% ~15.7%
sCRV +1% 0% ~20%** ~32%**
3CRV +4% 4.1% 8% 17%
cDAI +1% 10% ~11.1% ~20%

Table above is WITHOUT PIP17

** sCRV pool is very tiny and these APY will likely dramatically go down. Having even 1% emission here keeps it from going to 0 TVL which is where we are currently headed. These APY will also pick up if PICKLE price increases as well.

EDIT for PIP 17 allocation changes

Asset Emission Change cAPY nAPY tAPY
renBTCCRV +11% 4.71% ~17.89% ~21.4%
cDAI +1% 10% 15% ~24%

I am in favor of your proposed re-allocation.

The one question mark I have is with the sCRV pool. I am not sure what the need for this pool currently is and I would like to suggest, unless immediately important, we retire this pool an consolidate it into the 3pool (where most sCRV holders swapped into anyways when Pickle released that feature).

If the devs and community do not feel ready to retire sCRV then I suggest we allocate 0% rewards to this jar and let it naturally go to 0. I don’t want to incentivize a jar that nobody is using anyways.

Other than that, I am in favor of your proposal.

I’m in favor that any proposal that uses better Pickle emission that we are using now. And for me more we move away to a productive channel is better. But we have some concerns that we need to discuss, including:

  • How we can make LP’s “happy”? otherwise, they not will approve.
  • We are reducing Pickle emission every week at a 10% rate, and one of motivation to do that is to not generate a big awareness on LP’s, which in practice cause that LP’s stay longer. Said that increasing APY on jar slowly have the same effect, but this time against us. Because that I ask you, let’s cause an impact, schedule a date where bigger amounts will be changed, make a big announcement, make noise, Twitter, Medium, … and we will have a lot bigger results! Marketing 3.0, and Launching products are some of my days to day jobs, and my Pickle community is missing many opportunities to do it right.
  • We need to decide about " the Elephant in the room", Harvest (and others who are using Pickle as a base layer), before increase significantly jars APY’s.
1 Like

@Dreggplant, I am all for action in the right time frame.

Although I want to bring the following points to the communities attention. Disclaimer, I am an UNI only LP (really small bag). So out of our TVL of around 150 mil, we have 60 mil in our UNI jars. If we were to strip these rewards even before the UNI governance call which is slated to be on the 14th?? (don’t quote me on this), what is your opinion as to what will happen to that TVL? I know UNI governance is a mess right now, but I guess we should have an action plan ready and press the trigger only after we can confirm UNI rewards have ended and will not be continued for the foreseeable future.

Also the other biggest concern with Option 1, is how convinced as a community including the LPs are about reduction to the LP emissions. Hence @yyctraders suggestion about Discord Poll should go today. That way at least we get to see what the difference is between community and LP voting. Hence item 3 of your OP also becomes critical to get momentum and better view of the overall community.

Other than that, agreed with your OP and other suggestions here. Hope we can make this run smoothly.


UPDATE 11/12/2020:

The UNI Governance call happened and they (more or less) confirmed that UNI farming will be ending on November 17th. That’s five days from this post.

This means we will have a fresh 17% of allocation rewards to play with that can go to our current farms.

Based on this I would like to get feedback on various distribution templates. I would like to have three different options that will then be put to a Discord vote to gauge sentiment on people’s favorites.

Below is my “Option A” and I would like to see an “Option B” and “Option C” based on how others feele the distributions should be. Each option presented should briefly explain the logic behind it so others can understand.

RenBTCCRV +11%
sCRV +0%
3CRV +4%
cDAI +2%

I am proposing this allocation as it satisfies four things:

  1. Gives BTC a proper APY that is an absolute no-brainer risk-adjusted option for Bitcoiners to lock TVL with Pickle. The allocation percent appears high but its important to note it isn’t. This only boosts the BTC pool up to ~20% and that 20% will only last for a day while TVL learns about it and comes in. With the rising BTC price, and good APYs, TVL will naturally increase and APY will be pushed down. This is why we need to allocate heavier rewards to this pool now to give us a buffer for when that inevitably happens.

  2. Incentivizes our most profitable pool. The pDAI jar is our most profitable pool and others want to guide liquidity to this stablecoin option. By properly incentizing this we make more money for the treasury and that money is distributed back to PICKLE stakers in the form of higher APY%

  3. Incentivizes the Curve 3pool jar. Right now it’s actually more expensive to use Pickle auto compounding than it is to use Curve directly yourself for the 3pool. This incentivization stops this bleeding while still rewarding the pDAI pool more to incentivize liquidity to go to our most profitable jar

  4. Disincentivizes and (hopefully retires) the sCRV jar, which is a legacy jar nobody uses anymore and not our core value driver.

For these reasons I suggest OPTION A as our UNI reward redistribution template.

Please share your thoughts if you’d like to see your OPTION B or OPTION C.


1 Like

I think we are missing Curve Y pool with as much funds deposited in it as 3 pool:

The future distribution will need to take Sifu’s concern into consideration:

1 Like

17% UNI farm redistribution of PICKLE emissions should be (post PIP-17)


  1. rBTC (currently 10.83% farm APY) + 7%

  2. pDAI (currently 21.76% farm APY) + 5%
    *currently $12 million, strong potential for short term TVL growth

  3. 3CRV (currently 16.78% farm APY) + 5%
    *Assuming we are consolidating effort from sCRV into 3CRV (seems so).

The proposed allocation to renBTC seems very high. It’s might be a no brainer for BTCers to lock up their asset with us, but is it a no brainer for us to want that at all cost?

I agree that we should make renBTC and attractive option, but I’d prefer the pDAI jar to be our focus.

pDai jar is:

  • Strat is highly scalable
  • highest APY on leveraged stable coins (lots of fee share for us)
  • big market…especially with ETH mooning
  • Fits our stable coin brand

proposed ratios

renBTC +5% (attractive amount for BTC without paying to much)

following two will be our moneymakers, priority to pDai because it has a lot of room to grow.

pDAI + 8%
3CRV + 4%

will expand on this post in the morning


It looks like we have our three options as seen below:


Option A represents an allocation that incentivizes the Bitcoin pool, fees, and TVL it generates for the protocol. It also incentivizes our more profitable pools of 3pool and cdai.

Screen Shot 2020-11-12 at 4.31.34 PM


Option B represents a balanced allocation across all the pools. It acknowledges TVL and our more profitable pools equally.

Screen Shot 2020-11-12 at 4.31.43 PM


Option C represents an allocation that incentivizes the stablecoin pools and the fees they generate for the protocol. It also minorly supports Bitcoin and increasing TVL.

Screen Shot 2020-11-12 at 4.31.49 PM

I would now like to move these three options to a Discord temperature gauge poll if the community agrees.


I like option A. I like the discussion around making Pickle the to farm with CRV-RenBTC. I don’t like B or C as much. Too me B & C feel like an even split, and that just doubles down on our current TVL strategy/approach.

1 Like

I like option A, would gain a lot of the BTC TVL post-Uni liquidity mining.

CRVrenBTC gauge has been significantly lowered. Don’t focus too much on raw TVL. We want productive TVL.

Spraying emissions to an underperforming pool is pointless.


Here is a breakdown of the implication of the above proposals on jar APY at current time assuming TVL is static. Note: TVL increases will only draw these APY down as PICKLE becomes more widely spread across participants

Option A:

Asset Change Current APY New APY
renBTC +11% 10.77% 20.51%
3crv +4% 16.03% 21.06%
cdai +2% 21.89% 26.37%

Option B:

Asset Change Current APY New APY
renBTC +7% 10.77% 16.96%
3crv +5% 16.03% 22.32%
cdai +5% 21.89% 33.09%

Option C:

Asset Change Current APY New APY
renBTC +3% 10.77% 13.42%
3crv +7% 16.03% 24.83%
cdai +7% 21.89% 37.57%

I have left out scrv since all proposals have it at 0% change.

EDIT: Adding a table for perspective if each of the three assets got the full 17%

Asset Change Current APY New APY
renBTC +17% 10.77% 25.82%
3crv +17% 16.03% 37.41%
cdai +17% 21.89% 59.97%

I’d like 5 options
A - All 17 to BTC
B,C,D as proposed
E - 0 to BTC, 17 to stables

Full spectrum coverage


Thanks @jintao for the data, and @yyctrader for providing more choices!

As far as I’m concerned I am more in favor of options “D” and “E”.

Pickle already offers the best yields, why “waste” more if the wBTC holders don’t come? Maybe we need to entice them with something else … I imagine those who own wBTC have other ERC-20 tokens and are not just BTC maximalists.

Promoting stable coin pools will ensure good income for the stakers. I think this option should be favored because it would be more easily accepted by PICKLE / ETH LPs.

In 2 weeks, the stakers will only be able to count on excess cash, if income is minimized because of the choice to favor the wBTC pool, this risks causing some of them to “flee”.

This is only my opinion (I’m not speaking for anyone else).

I hope to see new jars / strategies coming soon.
I would also like to know the opinion and vision of the devs on the future of the protocol before “we decide what they have to do for us”.

I just created a topic on a strategy idea inspired by pDAI, I’ll be happy to know what you think: