Increase APY in governance proposal

Current APY is too low. I wanted to propose using 2.8m community pool to incentivize staking in governence and get more people involved in voting / forum. At the moment almost no one votes and APY is miserable 2%
2.8m MIR would add nice 100% APY for a year at current staking balances. Thoughts?

8 Likes

I am both a liquidity provider and MIR staker. I am aware that the current APY is relatively low for MIR. However, I believe that APY will grow as the platform becomes more activated with more closing and minting of CDPs. I have a feeling that we are just a bit early to determine the average APY of the staking since the platform can be further activated with more users.

5 Likes

I get it but we also have community pool which can be used to accelerate the process and turn more people into MIR hodlers / increase engagement / accelerate growth and that will lead to increased project awareness faster

1 Like

I share this opinion.

1 Like

In fact, I think it’s a problem that will be solved once more assets are added.

Can you elaborate how it will get solved with 5 new assets added ?

Hi Sam, I am definitely with you on this. With the current lockup period and low APY (approx 4%), no one is incentivised to vote on a community-governed protocol. Increase in staking APY from community funds will incentivise the vast majority to stake and vote, hence helping to drive the protocol forward.

1 Like

A week ago or so the apy was 16%. Cdp closures are down atm. Solved with growth. Is this really the answer here? Let’s incentivize minting more - helps also to have assets we’d all like to bet against (banks anyone?) then problem solved.

1 Like

I concur with Sam, more people would then stake and therefore would participate in voting, which will help the whole community! If there already is an amount of tokens for community use this is the perfect opportunity to use some for a good cause!

1 Like

I think this is a good proposal. Not everyone is feeling comfortable with providing LP and would rather stake MIR only. The current APY for staking MIR is not attractive and also no rewards are being paid out in the weekends. Increasing rewards from community pool would help increase rewards significantly and attract new investors. And more new investors means more governance voters benefiting decentralisation in general.

3 Likes

I’m agree on this proposal with Sam, we need more exposure atm and with current APY it’s not possible at all.

1 Like

Here is another idea to combat the low staking APR.

Currently the MIR/UST pool has 3x the rewards of others. it has 12mil in liquidity. way more than other pools. Is it an idea to make it 2x, and funnel the other rewards to pure MIR staking? that would incentivise staking purely MIR, which would make it more attractive to buy and hold.

I don’t think the hit on MIR/UST liquidity would be that big, because the APR will still be higher than staking MIR

2 Likes

thanks for your comment ! Current APY on MIR-UST is lower than all other pools but risk profile for staking in MIR-UST pool is higher than any other pools consisting of traditional assets which people are more comfortable with. Once BSC and 5 new mAssets launch it will adjust itself higher and all pools APY will drop keeping MIR-UST staking APY attractive vs other pools. IMO reducing weight from it will compromise / reduce MIR-UST liquidity and increase MIR price volatility therefore i don’t think its a good idea to consider messing with it.

1 Like

I think that increasing the APY in the governance staking will also have a positive effect on the value of mirror. To be considered attractive a yield should be at least 5-10% in my opinion, maybe we could create a rule that the community funds can be used for governance only when the yield falls below a certain threshold. Low staking in governance means that the whole project is more vulnerable to exploits

You have a fair point here.

This has been discussed at length here

The alignment was that we should do a text poll on how to increase governance rewards: either by diverting a portion of the existing inflation into MIR staking, or via using the community funds.
This is pending MIP-30 implementation (reduction of voting period to 7 days)

Your proposal is already considering the above as decided , but I still think we should get community feedback on that

I agree with this and we certainly need some stronger incentives for token holders that are promoting and adding value to Mirror

3 Likes

thanks Prrpl and welcome to the forum :smirk:

Considering the importance of governance for stability and proper operation of the protocol, a lot of people have foregone the higher apy from LP’ing in order to govern the protocol. For the sake of security, we need to get more people involved in governance. I would suggest that those who have sacrificed a higher apy in order to govern the protocol should be rewarded with a retroactive award not higher than they would have received had they chosen to LP instead. LP is important. Governance is very important.

2 Likes

I agree with you there! Profit is not a four letter word in my World, However Loss and Even are both four letter words. I don’t want to miss the great rewards currently on offer in the space, and my input does have value, in fact I am more than capable of having great input, and am able to deliver value adding content. As I am sure lots of us within the community are! We all have a value and deserve to be comfortably rewarded. This does not cost our community, in fact its quite the opposite.