Hopefully very soon. Text is ready 
Waiting for the dust to settle after PIP-17 is implemented tomorrow.
You caught on to this a long time ago…wish I had paid more attention 
Moving from 70% to 55% frees up 4118 PICKLEs/week (currently worth $82K/week) to be allocated to the pJars.
While the protocol currently earns nothing from these PICKLEs, we could potentially be getting 50% of that value back in fees if we allocate it to pDAI and renBTC.
Would it not be possible to allocate part of these emissions to the stakers directly? or allocate a share of the emissions from the UNI jars when / if they stop?
Pickles would be distributed proportionately among stackers, increasing their bag…
Some LPs could therefore prefer to stake, which would reduce liquidity and stakers would gain on several fronts (excess cash +% emissions)
I may be straying from the subject, and that may not make sense.
I admit being a little surprised by such a drastic drop in the share allocated to LPs, and this so close to a controversial decrease (in votes).
I’m about 50/50 LP and staker.
If the rewards for LPs halve and volatility increases as much, I might be tempted to take it all out and look for a more stable platform, or just farm stablecoins only (less return but more long-term security. ).
It is not a threat but simple resentment.
In short, there are too many issues and too many close deadlines to be able to assess this proposal. Which prompts me to vote against for now.
Not that I want to maintain some stability in the price of Pickles, I’m also worried that this will all turn into a simple competition for returns with Harvest as the only opponent.
Harvest did this, Harvest is better at that, we are better than Harvest doing this … blah blah
I don’t use Harvest, and I haven’t come to Pickle to make it look like Harvest.
I came for the community, the innovation and for the higher APYs, which for me Harvest does not have.
No hard feelings ^^
Never! You made my avatar
Completely understand your concerns that we may be moving too quickly.
To clarify, it would take at least 7-10 days before any further changes could be implemented.
Regarding emissions for stakers, everything is open for discussion. While it doesn’t generate fees, it could be a way to smooth the transition and incentivize people to move over to staking.
Currently just looking to get a Discord poll going so we can get a sense of what the overall community wants. It’s just 20-30 of us in the forum after all. If the poll fails, we shelve this idea and go back to the drawing board.
Here’s the Discord poll text I’ve been playing around with…thoughts/suggestions?
A community proposal has obtained the necessary support in the governance forum to merit the consideration of the broader PICKLE community.
The proposal seeks to reallocate 10% of PICKLE emissions in a phased manner from the Pickle/ETH pool to the PickleJars in pursuit of higher TVL and profits. Consequent to the passage of PIP-17, this would reduce the PICKLE/ETH pool’s share of emissions to 55%.
See details here: (link to this poll here)
Please note that this is only a preliminary vote to gauge support, and no action will be taken until the proposal is formalized in a PIP and a formal vote is taken. The timeline and target allocations will be open for debate prior to finalizing the PIP.
Should we reallocate 10% of PICKLE Emissions from the PICKLE/ETH Pool?
Y/N
We will consider a result of 75% in favour as confirmation to initiate a formal discussion.
This poll will be open for 48 hours until XXXX UTC
Potential follow up questions to make the poll more granular (looking at you @dafacto ):
Where should the PICKLE emissions be allocated?
A – 100% to the PickleJars
B – Some to Staking, Balance to the PickleJars
How quickly should we proceed?
1 – 3.33% every 3 days (total 7 days)
2 – 5% weekly (total 14 days)
3 – 10% one-off reduction (total 2 days)
This looks good @yyctrader . I think we should let this on into the wild. I am really curious to see the impact and participation level of Discord voting v/s snapshot voting. Would be also interesting to see how the vote participation and levels change between the Discord and Snapshot due to only LPs being allowed to vote.
Y B 2
I actually think 5% weekly for 3 weeks to take the emission down to 50% would be optimal, but either way this will be a tough one to get past @Tomato_Juxx and his LP pals.
Just be mindful that the redirected Pickle Emissions must be directed towards the most productive TVL. Overincentivizing pools with shitall emissions could actually be worse than the status quo.
Logic is, LP holders are less likely to dump 100% of their farmed Pickles, because they’ll be dumping on themselves.
Depositors on the other hand, have no skin in the game, if you spray these pickles to them, you should assume 100% of them will be market sold. We have to make sure the allocation is such that even in the scenario where they will sell 100% of the emissions, the net effect is still a benefit to Pickle holders.
@yyctrader thanks for taking the time on this, great work as always!
Should we reallocate 10% of PICKLE Emissions from the PICKLE/ETH Pool?
Where should the PICKLE emissions be allocated?
How quickly should we proceed?
As I mentioned n discord… I blive this preposal is detrimental to pickle.finance as you are constantly decreasing from the most important pool in the pickle eco system!
The jars are fine all profitable already and the tvl shows it… But tvl doesn’t help pickle or pickle holders by giving jars more emissions we just increase sell pressure on uniswap and the price will keep falling!
Uni lp providers put 22 mil in liquidity and the price has fallen since then 60% the lp providers have probably lost the most…
Now reajusting more emissions from them will chase them away!
Without our pickle liquidity this project will no longer have such high tvl… No point in harvesting pickle if you can’t sell it…
I would like to ask you guys which jar, pool, stake is the most important for pickle in the future…
My opinion is the uni pickle/eth farm.and if we keep decreasing it we won’t ever have a truly successful project.
Instead of decreasing emissions for our liquidity providers., we should rather be taking a percentage of jar profit to buy pickle out of uniswap and either give them to our uni liquidity providers or burn them!
I Agee with Vapur when he said…
‘Depositors on the other hand, have no skin in the game, if you spray these pickles to them, you should assume 100% of them will be market sold’
It was already discussed around and agreed that there’s too much liquidity and we’re paying too much for it.
However, I agree this seems a bit of a big cut, after pip-17. (Disclaimer: I am not LP)
Also, I would like to see an alternative for people who will remove liquidity-> will we incentivize further the staking? that would make more sense.
But anyway, as LPs are the voters, I don’t think this will pass…
That’s my concern too. I am more a LP than a staker here. The change of emissions doesn’t seem to me attractive to LP. Is reducing liquidity an objective or a mean for achieving another objective here? To achieve that objective, is reducing liquidity the only way? Reducing liquidity its own doesn’t sound like a good thing. I hope we can be clear about how we determine if the liquidity is “too much”.
The objective is to redirect those rewards to jars to incentivize people depositing as that’s what makes income for pickle. LPs are doing the service of on-off pickle but at the moment we don’t need so much liquidity.
I’ve lost count on how many topics are discussing the rewards, but here’s a good one with math
The Liquidity Conundrum and here jintao mentions that harvest (as an example) has 15M. The Liquidity Conundrum
Although the original topic “Liquidity Conundrum” is a bit too optimistic, it’s a good article to keep in mind IMHO.
As an LP I support this redirection if it is towards profitable jars. However, as others have noted, it doesn’t appear that our previous redirection has had any impact on TVL. I still believe that we a emitting too many Pickles per week overall which is keeping price down but can be rectified by adjusting the emission schedule. This may seem like the nuclear option but I don’t think it is. As long as the total supply is the same then we should be able to adjust emissions overall. Or maybe creating a smart emission system that tailors emissions to market demand would be better than constantly trying to adjust jar/farm emissions every other week. What should be clear to everyone is that decisions that increase Pickle price will increase Pickle farmers’ APY. I still don’t really see how incentivizing groups that dump Pickle increases Pickle price. I think the logic is that more fees will be generated which goes to stakers who may (or may not) buy more Pickle?
I’m not a fan of changing the schedule now. Unlike many projects, it’s one of the least discussed topics here and for good reason. Sure it could be tweaked but I think efforts are better spent elsewhere
Yay! It passed and with a sizable amount of community support.
From all the detractors I still can’t get a reasonable response for why Harvest has 13.6M in their LP with nearly $3M/day of trading activity and no one over there is complaining about their LP size being too illiquid.
But Pickle with a $16.7M LP and only $850k/day trading is considered untouchable?
Maybe we should switch to a PICKLE/USDC LP like they did and then we can kill the arguments about IL and more risk/skin in the game.
All I do know is that we are clearly overpaying for a service we don’t fully utilize and thus I am more than happy to see this 10% reduction move forward
Great work guys. I know there is still some resentment in discord over this poll, but the well thought through arguments should put these to rest. Let get this to the test now and see how the LPs react!!
Hey @Larry_Cucumber, sorry about the ping, just bringing this thread and @yyctrader last message back to focus? What do the devs think about this and moving it to an RFC?
Hey @projectuwb - I think a pre-requisite for this one happening is for voting power to vest in stakers instead of LPs, because this proposal would never fly with the current voting mechanism unfortunately.
