Ok good discussion here, what does it take to put something up as a proposal to vote on? Maybe with the top 2 options + a “do nothing” option?
keen to keep the ball moving on this, token price is cratering & obv this means we should be trying to change the value proposition for holders a bit. The market has spoken and it is saying “current tokenomics are not working”
We’re working on modeling a few things atm. The simple approach is to say "how much of X POL asset do we need to sustain Y TVL at Z APY " and model how that APY changes with TVL
This is easy to accomplish. Just say how much vlCVX do we need to have 8,933 in CRV emissions per week? 272,942 vlCVX is the answer, which at current levels is not immediately feasible. Nor does it tell us anything about how TVL and yield are correlated.
We propose to ask a better question instead. “How much of X POL asset do we need to acquire to sustain a specific level of TVL in the future”. Using historical data to see how TVL reacts to APY and vice versa
Currently working with how much TVL is present in a given LP for every CRV emission, aka veCRV vote via vlCVX used to vote. The hypothesis is simple: For every vlCVX acquired, some amount of emission is directed, and that correlates to an increase in LP TVL
There’s a handful of variables to consider and no standardized way to do so. Initially it looks like about $9 in LP TVL is attracted per vlCVX. More to come and thanks to @pastelfork for taking this task head on
Legend ser @pastelfork
Did we end up getting those simulations?