Allowing $TINY LP's to be used within TM Governance

Proposal Discussion
1

I would like to put forth the feature request to add in $TINY paired LP’s into recognition for Tinyman Governance.

This feature’s major benefits include:

  1. Increasing $TINY liquidity to pools outside the majors pairs
  2. Allow a second vector for yield within the Tinyman Governance system (swap fees)

With increased $TINY TVL the Algorand ecosystem has deepening roots without missing out on the staking yield we currently get within the governance system.

Things to be aware of:

  1. New ASA Gamification
  2. $TINY holding changes caused by impermanent loss

To avoid gamification, governance power should only be honored to equal the amount of $TINY being locked. Example: ASA/ TINY LP = 500 ASA + 250 TINY. —> TINY voting power equals +250. Locking LP tokens may be recognized as additional, where we may want to honor a small voting boost to TINY LP’s paired with major assets ONLY (ex. USDC, ALGO, WBTC, tALGO, etc.).

Voting power should be valued at the time of LP lock thus avoiding keeping track of the actual asset token count that changes within the LP over time. This can be both good and bad as TINY holdings within the LP may increase or decrease over time, but avoids the complexity on constantly refreshing values.

Looking forward to hearing the communities thoughts on this proposal.

Cheers,

CT

2 Likes
2

As someone that has continually built up Tiny pairings specifically to farm before eventually withdrawing all in Tiny to commit to governance this is rather appealing to me.

I’m a pretty long-term holder, if overtime I built up a 3M Tiny position in tiny/USDC I wouldn’t care to lock it for the time my tiny is already locked – assuming I also get the benefits of farming as well. Is it possible to lock LPs in governance like that and still have them available to commit to farming?

As was pointed out previously there is some issues with the current pool structure, seeing goBTC fall with market volatility far more than the underlying BTC asset did.

And deep liquidity to absorb price shocks is of benefit to us all, to quote @ROAM

TINY/USDC:
TINY/USDC is important for TINY token, because we want to deepen TINY’s liquidity that has gone down from almost $2M to just $470k, so we are in danger of to be kicked out from Folks Finance. They have mentioned that minimum liquidity should be at least $500k and we are now under that. Also by adding liquidity into this pool, it will slightly increase TINY’s price and offers more price stability that should also help to fight against declining price (deeper liquidity to absorb price shocks).

So at the very least it does seem like it would benefit Tinyman as a whole to allow locking of the tiny/usdc pairing for governance participation if only as a trial-run before seeing to expand into other assets like tiny/algo or tiny/talgo, the later of which would also ensure a small stream of revenue from the long-term locking of talgo and tinyman’s share of staking rewards (I think it’s 10%?) As well as encouraging long-term staking of Algo via talgo.

Finally would suggest that goBTC should be used rather than wBTC, if nothing else than to support another major partner in the Algorand ecosystem. I personally believe if we can utilize partnerships with other native Algorand players we should. Folks, Gomint, etc. The stronger our native defi ecosystem is the stronger Algorand is imo, and a stronger Algorand is good for Tinyman. That’s not to say wbtc isn’t important but as an asset it has support access on many diffrent chains, and personally I’d like to see a day when goBTC/goETH is a major player in wrapped assets and used on exchanges and other chains like other wrapped assets are today.

2 Likes
3

Yeah, after my current 30 day experiment is over, I am rotating out of TINY/ALGO and into TINY/USDC.

1 Like