LP Staking Voting Power Incentive

Will the deposit to LP on Camelot be staked for a certain period of time. If so can this be included in the proposal. If it will be staked. And gain voting rights in DAO. Who will decide how these votes are cast considering they are owned by the DAO. Thanks

What is the Strategic Reward system? Should it be included in Proposal so that DAO knows what they are voting for? I see mention of being able to vote only in the details. But seem to be missing the mention of the rewards.

Adding voting power to LP providers why not but why making this LP on a DEX ? Was there no other place/solution than this ? I don’t think people like to lock tokens into a DEX nowadays.


So this proposal is setup so only whales have a say. I am opposed to this approach. Players who are smaller should have at least an opportunity to chime in and vote with their staking.

The other issue with this approach is that it is not based on play… just how much money you throw at the pile. Badges give the aspect of you at least play the game.

I will vote against this.

What do you mean ? You will still be able to vote from your normal staked new $CU, I didn’t understand what you meant ? Else you described how is currently designed voting power of anything, tied to the number of tokens you stake/hold/etc, nothing new, small player still have their voting according to their numbers :thinking:

Tbf liquidity providers risk much higher than single-side stakers, so maybe it would be better to reward them properly according to sRBW too? rn 34 RBWLP = 6000 RBW + 0.06 ETH, LP stakers voting power in this case will be way too small, if I understood it correctly. Definitely requires some tweaking.

I don’t see how that is going to happen as anyone can do it, not just whales.

Edit: Misunderstood the question. The initial amount is what’s used to seed/create the pool. No voting voting power be used.

Adding voting rights is the strategic system being presented here.

I’m open to suggestions, this can be changed depending on feedback. So far, nobody has shared an actual number but I’m looking forward to it.

A couple of questions:

  1. agree with @Vyona. If our market maker has an ideal target for liquidity, we should find out what that is and try to make that the reality. We hired them as experts. Let’s use that.

  2. agree with @ArtToRich and @hshsh. the voting power of 1 LP token is a joke compared to single sided stakers. LP providers take on more risk and would be getting a tiny fraction of the voting power. I would like to see a more reasonable voting power conversion.

  3. I am not familiar with Camelot. Are there requirements to lock in the LP tokens for a specific duration? If so, will there be different voting bonuses for locking in for specific times? (Not related to this proposal specifically, but will single sided stakers still get more voting power for locking in for longer duration?)

Generally, I’m in support of this. I see the benefits and motivations behind a deeper liquidity pool and incentivize others to contribute to LP. Just want to make sure we have all the information to vote properly.

I’m in support. LP token voting power conversion is reasonable with no lockup of tokens

I am supportive of this proposal as a whole. I think it gives incentive for people to enter and stake into the CU LP on Camelot. If LP tokens will be staked but not used for voting. Will this make it harder to reach quorum during snapshot votes. If the plan changes to use the tokens to vote in the future will this require a new proposal or do the tokens in the DAO have the right to vote given this proposal gives them this reward. If so questions still remains who will decide how vote is used. Unless the additional rewards are to be added via future proposals I think its good to have them included in proposal. I find asking questions is the best way to add clarity to proposals. So without these answers. I am in support. But having clarity of what everything means is good. A lawyer on the Authors side has likely reviewed and understands what they mean with every word. But the DAO currently does not have a lawyer clarifying what every word means. It maybe something the DAO looks into before signing contracts via proposal in the future. Not a big lawyer person myself. But know from experience its never a good idea to sign a contract at a table without one when the other side of the table does.

IP has been transferred to the DAO. If you are saying the ‘intention’ is for no voting power to be used by the DAO, I’d suggest editing and clarifying the proposal Re: no voting power will be used by DOL for LP pool. Otherwise, the way it’s worded, it looks like DAO LP pool would have the right to vote. But if DAO has right to vote, who and how will the vote be decided?

But on the flip side, also not sure it would be a good plan to remove voting rights from DAO for LP pool. Again goes back who and how will the DAO LP vote be decided?

I support LP pool and rewards in general. But, wondering if adding voting rights to the LP pools is a good plan. LP pool would likely draw degans vs people actually playing our game. Will people really be enticed to join LP pool because of voting rights vs another way to incentive rewards.

Still thinking on this. But these are a few initial concerns/thoughts.

Agreed. I’m happy to hear suggestions as well. We’re gonna be doing an analysis, and then I’ll make a revision either end of week or early next week.

No changes will be made to single-side staking so it’s the similar mechanics of multipliers based on timelock.

Hey, TT! Yes, I misunderstood your message initially that’s why I corrected the response. As long as the proposal indicates that voting power will not be exercised and the DAO approves it during Snasphot, then it should be fine! I’ll proceed adding that end of week or early next week along with a new suggestion for the voting power. Just need to complete the analysis. :pray:

As for the additional rewards, the emission allocation for both LP staking and single-side staking remain unchanged which is why there’s no mention of a new value.

CC: IslandGurl

Fair point but maybe it’s not such a negative thing? I think it’s a good think that there’s something for everybody in the ecosystem, whether it’s the DAO, the core game, the 2P or just the defi aspect of it.

1 Like

Thanks for answering my questions. Support for this proposal. Will look for updated proposal. Thank you.

Same. Supporting the proposal and looking for the updates.

Hello, everyone!
I apologize for taking a while to update this. We’ve made an analysis and found that this would be difficult to implement if we’re planning to ensure that LP stakers are getting the same voting power on a per dollar basis due to market fluctuations. Because of this, I am retracting this proposal. This thread will be closed 3 days from now.

I’m still keen on encouraging LP providers. We’re currently reviewing a different reward system to encourage and reward liquidity providers. We’re considering tying Grail, Arb, CU and XAI rewards to LP staking and also running a leaderboard event (liquidity bootstrapping event) related to LP staking.

This is still in the works but I still intend to find an alternative to boosting our token’s liquidity while also aptly rewarding the LP providers. :saluting_face:

1 Like