We want to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback and suggestions regarding the eligibility criteria for $TINY rewards pools. After internal discussions, we’ve decided to take a community-driven approach on this matter.
To that end, we’ve opened this thread, and we encourage your thoughtful contributions. Once we’ve gathered sufficient feedback, we may move forward with an on-chain proposal.
For the time being, we will exclude pools or tokens with low liquidity and clawback functionality enabled to protect our community.
Thank you for opening up this important discussion and taking a community-driven approach. I believe that a well-defined eligibility framework will help maintain the integrity of TINY farming while encouraging sustainable growth. Here are my thoughts:
Balanced Incentives and Safety Measures: I agree with excluding pools with low liquidity or clawback functionality, as they present risks to participants. However, we could consider an adaptive threshold for liquidity levels, which can evolve over time to accommodate emerging projects that need initial support.
TVL & Volume Requirements: Establishing minimum Total Value Locked (TVL) or trading volume could ensure that rewards are directed toward pools that actively contribute to Tinyman’s ecosystem. A weighted reward system based on liquidity and volume could also be explored to ensure fair distribution.
Governance Voting Integration: I recommend tying eligibility criteria to active participation in governance. For example, governance participants could propose which pools should be eligible, or eligibility could be linked to voting metrics. This would foster a deeper connection between governance and farming activities, in line with ideas discussed in the commoditized governance votes proposal.
Tokenized Farming Rights: Following the logic of $voTINY (or $veTINY) from previous discussions, farming rights could be tokenized, allowing participants to trade or rent them. This could enhance liquidity and engagement across multiple pools while giving the community more flexibility in deciding where to allocate rewards dynamically.
Sustainability Focus: As we set eligibility standards, we should ensure they align with long-term goals like ecosystem sustainability. Rewarding pools that demonstrate consistent growth and community activity could prevent rewards from becoming concentrated in a few pools, promoting a more diverse and robust ecosystem.
Implementation Proposal: Once we gather feedback, it might be beneficial to introduce test pools under the proposed criteria before finalizing the framework. This would allow the community to experiment, provide feedback, and ensure alignment before the on-chain proposal goes live.
I appreciate the openness to ideas and community involvement in shaping the future of Tinyman. These steps will not only ensure fairness but also create an ecosystem where governance, liquidity, and farming rewards are fully aligned.
Hi @mangosteen Right now, it is a permissionless approach. Meaning, anyone with TINY power can vote any farm. There are no restrictions in place. Since we would like to refine that approach, we opened this thread.
I agree with everything @algotables has mentioned. All make sense.
Total minimum liquidity amount should be a requirement. Any pools that don’t meet the minimum liquidity requirement should not be eligible for rewards. By doing this we focus on serious pools with serious trades.
Adding on to that, Is it possible to lock liquidity in pools for say 4 years or x amount of years? If this can be done - then I’d say this should be one parameter/requirement to measure how much rewards the pool gets.
A pool where say 90% of the liquidity is locked for 4 years plus should be eligible for more rewards than a pool where say 50% of the liquidity is locked.
This way you are rewarding long term liquidity providers who ain’t looking to rug pull. The more years locked the more rewards - similar to tiny token style governance.
Trade volume is another factor. Pools with more trade volume should automatically get higher reward. As algotable mentioned.
I appreciate you mentioning that because I had no idea what the hell I was doing. I just knew that I had a say in something that seemed important. I felt pretty out of place. I’m glad this is a major topic of discussion and could be something that gets officially changed or improved In the future. Thank you Eric
I’m not in favor of a lot of strict rule for eligibility as this is supposed to be a permissionless protocol. I understand there probably needs to be some safeguards in place but if we want the Algorand community to grow and invite new projects into the ecosystem this is a GREAT way for them to get visibility. However its entirely possible a newly established pool by someone might not have the trading volume that would meet whatever eligibility would be considered high enough to be voted on for tiny rewards.
If the community is just going to be voting their TINY to the same large and established pools period after period there will be no incentive for a new token or community to strategically decide to buy up enough TINY power and lock it to vote on their pools. It would be the same poeple receiving the same rewards in the same pools every period and I don’t see any growth in that scenario. I think we would want other communities or individuals to see TINYMAN as the place they can market, reward, and grow a newer community by rewarding their project with TINY. They would just have to buy enough TINY in the market to make their Pool one of the top 60. That will drive up the buy demand of TINY and also increase the volume and TVL of their pools when others see the APR and might start adding to that pool.
@jhalgo, I appreciate your perspective on keeping Tinyman open to new projects. A permissionless protocol is essential for growth, and you’re right that strict eligibility rules might limit opportunities for emerging pools to gain traction.
To balance inclusivity with the safety of the ecosystem, we could explore a tiered rewards system. This would allow pools with lower TVL and volume to participate while ensuring rewards remain aligned with their impact level:
Tiered Rewards:
Tier 1: Low TVL/Volume pools can receive capped rewards, letting new or smaller pools engage without overexposing the ecosystem.
Tier 2: Moderate TVL/Volume pools, showing consistent activity, qualify for a higher reward cap.
Tier 3: High TVL/Volume pools, which contribute significantly to Tinyman’s stability, receive the highest reward cap.
Flexibility and Growth:
This system gives newer pools a way to participate and grow, while encouraging projects to increase their TVL and volume to reach higher reward tiers over time. Each pool can build visibility and legitimacy progressively without creating excessive risk.
Alignment with Adaptive Threshold:
This is an extension of the adaptive threshold idea, allowing rewards to scale based on activity, which could make Tinyman more dynamic and fair for both well-established and emerging pools.
By adding reasonable caps at each tier, we can stay true to the permissionless ethos you highlighted while protecting TINY holders and incentivizing growth across the board.
Being permissionless and making it easy for new projects to grow and gain exposure is the way forward I agree too.
However, being permissionless is a double edge sword. 100% Decentralization is a double edge sword. You wil ALWAYS HAVE good apples and bad apples - this is a given.
So for new projects trying to gain exposure, I would strongly reccommend them to have some sort of liqudity lock up in the pool for say 4 or 5 years - this proves and shows the community right from the get go that this project is serious about growing. By doing this, the community don’t have to worry about rugging therefor the community will probably trust this new project enough to add their own liquidity further into the pool too which is a win win for the project and users/community.