Implement minimum TVL for Tiny incentives to combat fraud and abuse

Proposal Discussion
1

I suggest to implement a minimum TVL floor of $5000 for a pool to he eligible to receive $Tiny incentives, with an option to later increase it to $10000 as protocol TVL increases.

Rationale: Currently anyone with a moderate anount of $Tiny voting power can vote themselves $Tiny incentives. This is a side effect of the low $Tiny price, and it is already being abused on a large scale.

It is possible for malicious actors to acquire or create an indefinite anount of worthless tokens, pair them, and the vote for $Tiny rewards for the pair. The anount of Tiny VP needed for that is in anyones reach due to the low $Tiny price. The malicious actors are then rewarded with free $Tiny while sapping rewards from legitimate projects, and acquire even more Tiny VP.

This puts TVL, trading volume, fee income and even the long term future of Tinyman at risk.

My proposal could curb this abuse and incentivise much needed liquidity for legitimate projects and stablecoins.

The earlier this issue is addressed, the better.

4 Likes
2

I think a minimum TVL floor of 5000$ floor is too harsh.

I’d rather add requirement for a token to have at least 10k Algo in any of Algo, usdc, btc or Tiny pools.

This way:

  • it will be harder for fishy ASAs to pass filter.

  • people still will be able to promote decent pools with low liquidity (for example - Tiny/Coop)

3 Likes
3

I think anyone willing to buy and lock TINY, should be free to vote for whatever they want with their TINY.

True, free and open markets and democratization of money is the principle cryptocurrency is built on.

If someone doesn’t like a pool getting a larger %, buy and lock more TINY of your own to diminish their % & increase the % of those pools you think are worthy - simple.

Vote with your money - someone with more skin in the game, willing to back TINY more with more buys & locks, should have more say.

1 Like
4

I like this, however: Given how small Tinyman’s overall effect on algo or BTC (relative to the 10B total supply and compared to world events vs an algo/usdc liquidity boost on price right now anyway) 100k tiny paired in an LP would attract desperately needed liquidity in key pairings. Although from an administrative side I’m not sure how this could be implemented.

Talgo would be abetter choice as it would directly boost Tinyman’ share of staking fees.

More coordination between Govs to block large APR pools via combining their voting power to boost a specific LP rather than diluting it across small LP’s would be the most useful, democratic, and easiest from a resource spent POV.

(side bar: @TinyGovernor @bernalgo please go check out and vote here please.(Improvements to our Goverance System an xGov Pilot program) Also @FoggyFinder thank you for the votes.)

5

Community was against this last time.

Good to read this thread:

1 Like
6

That was actually me who posted this against it last time, but things have changed.

People are now exploiting it, instead of supporting ecosystem projects they acquire Tiny power to form pools with totally worthless rugged tokens like botsy (where they own 90% ofvthe supply) with the sole purpose to acquire even more Tiny power to vote themselves even more rewards and so on, in a circular fashion. That is essentially an exploit . It also takes away from legitimate projects. If this is not stopped, it will endanger the very future of the protocol.

It has to be addressed in sone manner. If someone has a better proposal than mine for how to close this exploit loophole, that would be even better.

1 Like
7

The best method that I know of that we can do, while keeping the decentralized nature of the platform is:

Smaller tiny govs grouping together to make Tiny more expensive and thereby harder to rug from a single deep-pocket whale.

And from my stance the only long-term method we have to do that that also preserves minimal risk to us all, is absorbing more sell-pressure from the market.

We can do that two ways: all buy up more tiny – a hard enough thing to do with the current economic environment.

Or make selling have less of an effect:
Also known as committing our tiny power to increase liquidity in tiny-paired LPs and/or committing ourselves to increasing those LPs (like tiny/usdc) over the long-term.

We make tiny more expensive to buy, we help put pressure on whales buying up tokens to back and farm their own rugpulls.

A single whale may have a LOT of tiny power, but it’s own effect can be countered by combining a handful of our top accounts, or a lot of our mid-range accounts into putting our tinypower in a single LP.

The most nonobjective and useful IMO: tiny/usdc, and secondarily: Tiny/taglo.

ADDED:
The issue is, we have to be able to coordinate effectively between us.

Of note I have brought up some ideas here regarding a potential Tiny200 initiative.

I also suggested maybe a small UI change to our gov list on the website here.

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.

1 Like