@EricTinyman I was looking at our gov listed today and wondered something:
How difficult would it be to add a column on the site for highlighting users that are above a specific threshold of liquidity in an LP? With a little icon badge for important tiny pairings, along with a small data list of the top 5 or so contributors to major LP’s for tinyman.
Example: Say a little icon for “core contributor” or something if you contribute 5/10/15% of a total LP (along the lines of bronze/silver/gold) ?
So lets say Kedmd held 10% of the tiny/gobtc and 10% of tiny/talgo he’d get two small badges, one for each LP highlighting it, and then on the actual LP screen there would be a little list at the bottom highlighting top 5 or 10 accounts by share of the LP they held (listed as something like core contributors).
For one, easy transparency, but also to highlight (and somewhat gamify) contributions to core LPs and hopefully encourage more use of them.
I’ve never seen a lot of significant use of LP growth relative to rewards offered, I’m not entirely sure it matters if an LP has 20% farm or 200% farm, liquidity goes where it wants to go – the places people trust the most, especially long-term.
USDC/Algo: $1.94M TVL, 12.5% APY, 0.33% Farm
talgo/usdc: $3.55k TVL, 10.35% APY. 1.74% Farm
Currently tiny/usdc offers some 40% with farming, yet only has 10.1k in liquidity and only 6k of that is participating in the farm and it’s 11 days into the cycle.
Tiny/gobtc offers 40% with farming, yet only has $5.4k liquidity and only $3.4k of that is being used in the farm.
Also @EricTinyman one more question:
At the current stage of the market cycle, Tinyman is operating with a lean team and a constrained budget due to lower trading volumes and reduced protocol revenue across the ecosystem. Because of this, we have to be extremely selective about which initiatives we can realistically commit engineering and audit resources toward.
For a feature of this complexity, we would only feel comfortable moving forward if we could implement it at the level of security, robustness, UX quality, and audit coverage that users expect from Tinyman — and under current conditions, we do not believe we can responsibly commit to that level of implementation effort.
That does not mean the idea lacks merit. On the contrary, we think it raises interesting long-term governance design questions that may become more feasible to revisit in the future as market conditions improve and the protocol’s available resources expand.
As I said before, completely reasonable. Although I have a new question now:
Would it be a good idea for me to edit said proposal and with clarification that this would be a proposal pending until market conditions allow it ? Cause like… I can continue the process of whipping forum votes for this even if this was something that might not come to fruition for say: a year, a year in a half from now. And even push for a vote on this and on the proposal @ROAM posted for a temp airdrop2 wallet allocation here: Temporary airdrop2 wallet allocation