Establishing Eligibility Criteria for Pools to Qualify for $TINY Farming Rewards

General
21

The criteria’s mentioned by tinyman team makes total sense. Their goal is to protect the community and they doing it right.

1). Regarding your law argument for freeze and clawbacks - crypto is no where close to mainstream yet so it’s risky to let projects with freeze and clawbacks be eligible for rewards. Most scammers and rug pullers get away with frauding the crypto community with zero consequence (at present) - where is the law here?

If a project is serious about launching a pool - they should Already have a good amount of capital to begin with. Creating a project/token should be akin to starting a business. With a proper plan. Imagine I want to start a business and I depend on rewards for revenue… :joy: that isn’t a serious business to begin with.

If you are a small project with barely any capital, I’m sorry but you don’t deserve any rewards. Their plenty of VCs out there to fund you. Plenty of family and friends to fund you. If your project is sound you should get sufficient capital easily.

I would also like to add. Is it possible for LPs to be locked up for x amount of years? Pools/projects/ppl who lock up their LPs for longer should be eligible for more rewards id say. By locking your Lp for longer creates more trust too.

All in all - tinyman team is doing the right thing in terms of their criteria.

1 Like
22

“where is the law here?” - token issuance. USDC, EURS, GOLD$, SILVER$ need to have freeze &/or clawback in place. also all wormhole tokens have clawback and freeze in place. so blocking all tokens with freeze & clawback, you basically just limit legit projects & companies. and you have left only ALGO + smaller tokens.

if you know how rugs work, then you know that rugs do not need clawback & freeze at all. all rugs so far have been made without using freeze or clawbacks. so your argument is not valid. or kindly prove me wrong.

Regarding your serious business logic. Company behind Meld is world second largest gold distributor. So I think that is pretty serious company. they have clawback and freeze on because of regulation. they have many small pools community can grow. so if they have small pool and use TINY power to boost that pool, it is not serious business? hmm… logic101 in place.

“If you are a small project with barely any capital, I’m sorry but you don’t deserve any rewards” ? based on what? so if I have TINY tokens or some small project uses capital to buy TINY tokens, their money is worth nothing because they are not big enough? so if you have small salary, government should take it away because you are poor? or what kind of mental gymnastics you are practicing in here? 1$ = 1$. that is how capital markets work.

If you refer “my project”, COOP is not mine and it has over $500k in liquidity pools. is that still small or what will be the definition of “small” in this sense?

“Their plenty of VCs out there to fund you” I don’t need more money from family or VCs. I do this because this is fun hobby. I only use funds I am afford to lose. I have all good. good work and everything very well in life. If I would struggle somehow, I think I wouldn’t be here voluntarily using my own funds to help Algorand to grow.

“I would also like to add. Is it possible for LPs to be locked up for x amount of years?” this fights against capital efficiency in general if we talk about liquidity on market. this will limit Tinyman ability to get more funds into platform I think. Say you have extra USDC and you want to place them into xUSD/USDC LP to take advantage of xUSD current de-peg and withdraw funds from LP when xUSD is back to peg. Now if you limit rewards from this because he doesn’t want to lock them up because can’t know when pegs, then he might feel that this is kind of unfair, so probably will just buy xUSD with those USDC and stake xUSD on CompX platform to earn rewards.
So good to remember that people will easily look alternative solutions. that is core idea of efficient market.

So conclusion, if you try to limit too much market and we say Pact launches similar governance without “greater knowledge & supervision”, people will probably migrate pretty quickly over there. So I kind of prefer less “authority” and more freedom. After all that is why so many are in here.

TINY tokens lock is fine because it is platform governance token after all.

Regards,
ROAM

3 Likes
23

100% decentralization and freedom is a double edge sword. It’s not easy to keep everyone happy. But decisions have to be made to keep the majority safe in a market where it’s still considered somewhat a Wild West.

You want more freedom, but you argue that clawback and freeze is needed because of law and regulation. Law and regulation is opposite to freedom.

Tinyman is doing the right thing by focusing on projects with deep liquidity.

Tinyman is growing slowly. And every decision should not rushed. There is no reason to rush.

As the crypto space changes overtime, as rules changes over time, as laws changes overtime, tinyman will also evolve.

But as of now, I fully agree with the criteria’s in place set by tinyman. It makes total sense.

These criteria’s are not written in stone. It will certainly evolve over time.

Decentralization is a double edge sword - going full on wild Wild West without any oversight will lead to more bad than good - this is a fact.

Yes some projects even with clawback and freezes are certainly legit, but their would be more bad projects than good if rewards were openly given out to any Tom dick and hary.

There are pros and cons to everything - whatever the outcome.

1 Like
24

“You want more freedom, but you argue that clawback and freeze is needed because of law and regulation. Law and regulation is opposite to freedom.” - Why it is so hard to understand that if you want USDC, EURS, GOLD$, SILVER$ or any wormhole token on Algorand ecosystem those will be there. or is your point to remove those completely? if so, then I think pointless to continue this conversation…

“Yes some projects even with clawback and freezes are certainly legit, but their would be more bad projects than good if rewards were openly given out to any Tom dick and hary.” - More bad projects? not so far no. biggest “projects” and tokens have clawback and freeze on. so kind of reality is against you. again, show me one rug that have used clawback or freeze. I will wait.
→ you can’t because rugs do not need them. they have executed different way. so this kind of ruins your whole argument.

I count on Tinyman team and that they have thought this. I am pretty sure they will not remove all the Wormhole, Meld, Stasis & Circle tokens from eligible list, so in other words, will not apply this restriction because if they do, they have not much left.

Maybe better to think a bit and not rush things like you said.

Regards,
ROAM

2 Likes
25

One more thing. If some new token appears and is very new and applies a lot of tiny power into it. then it might be reasonable not to allow those incentives to it because it might be rug. I get that and good to use some common sense, but point is that it is not about clawbacks and freezes. it is more about, do we know well enough if some new token is scam/rug or not.

So again, focus on how to validate token true intentions and are those matured enough and do they have good reputation that community and users trust. or are sentiment neutral at least.

So I think it is good to have reasonable safety measures in place, but that clawback & freeze thing kind of misses the point because it will not prevent any rugs or scams. again, so far all rugs do not have had any freeze or clawback in place.

When you do rugs, you pull liquidity out and dump all. that is how rugs work. they do not need clawback to do that.

Regards,
ROAM

4 Likes
26

Hi all,

I indeed would not like to see a complicated rule structure.
I think it would already help to have a limit on APR. The limit on tiny APR per pool shouldn’t go above the APR offered in governance rewards. In this way we avoid ridiculous percentages that could likely be correlated to scam coins, and hopefully increase demand for governance participation.
The logistics on how to implement, I propose a daily check, before sending the rewards, and what to do with potential leftover tiny tokens would likely be a discussion as well.

Dave

27

That seems pretty sensible, I think. I’m an ASA owner and also an investor in TINY, and it seems fair that way.