Right now only ppl who buy tiny tokens and lock them up have the power to participate in tinyman governance.
Liqudity providers (LPs) on tinyman on the other hand have zero power to partake in tinyman governance.
Isn’t this somewhat lopsided and makes zero sense? Given that without LPs - Tinyman defi platform would not even work let alone exist.
So the true power are with the LPs. LPs should
be able to partake in governance even without purchasing any tiny token.
Keep the current method of locking tiny to partake in governance as it is but just also add to make it applicable for LPs to participate in tinyman governance automatically too.
Just like how you lock tiny tokens, we can lock LPs and get some other tokens as proof that we have locked the LPs? Something along these lines could work?
The REAL GOVERNERS should be the ppl who ACTUALLY support the tinyman platform (ie LPs).
Can this be worked out some how so LPs can participate in tinyman governance?
To add further, no monetary rewards are even required (some would be nice but not required) for LPs to participate in tinyman governance because having skin in the game is enough to prove that you would want the best outcome for the tinyman and would like it to grow and blossom to its fullest.
@EricTinyman @fergal @blue
4 Likes
Hi @mangosteen Thanks for sharing this thoughtful suggestion!
I fully agree. Liquidity providers are the backbone of any DEX, and their contribution is vital to the functioning and success of Tinyman. The idea of allowing LPs to participate in governance by locking LP tokens (similarly to how TINY is locked) is an interesting one, and it aligns with our broader goal of creating an inclusive and meaningful governance system.
While there are currently no mechanisms in place to enable this, your suggestion opens up a valuable conversation about evolving our governance model. Introducing governance rights for LPs - potentially via locked LP tokens or a new representation mechanism - would require careful design to balance voting power, prevent abuse, and ensure meaningful participation.
We’ll be exploring governance improvements further, and this is definitely an idea worth discussing more with the community. Please keep the ideas coming! This is how we grow together.
3 Likes
Fully support this as long as you’re locking your Tiny paired LP in a similar fashion as the existing governance lock and no additional rewards are afforded. Great idea!
3 Likes
Yes do it in the same fashion. By locking LP, it totally benefits the ecosystem even more long term as it shows committment. Pools with a lot of LPs locked shows that that pool is even more legit and less likely to get rugged.
But for incentive sake, might be a good idea to reward a little tiny tokens for locking longer for an x amount of time, say if you lock 2 years or more then you are eligible for rewards. Or something of sort.
The point is - LPs have invested a lot already (and they go thru a lot of impermanent loss) and now if they want to have a say in tiny man direction - they need to invest a lot more to buy tiny tokens. It’s double the investment!! Seems to be a bit unfair I’d say.
When infact, a single investment in LP should suffice for LPs to vote.
Just like how a single investment in purchasing tiny is suffice to vote.
2 Likes
Regarding the upcoming cycle 10 farming rewards vote in tinyman -
How on earth is Mooj/algo in first place with 18% of votes?
TVL of mooj/algo - ONLY 85k. 24 hour volume - ONLY 1.6k - this is the biggest joke. This is how gaming the system works. If all you need is tiny tokens then a rich fool can come in buy tiny and just direct tinyman platform as they please.
Had LPs had more power or some power at least to vote - gaming the system would not be easy.
Very difficult for LPs to game the system without directly adding a net positive effect on tinyman platform first - LPs would have to directly add and lock liquidity first (which supports platform directly) and be willing to go thru impermanent loss on their investment - then they can vote for whichever pools as they wish.
Mooj/algo being top is so sad. Full of insiders.
2 Likes
It also might move votes away from meme-related pairs towards more utility-pairs, (Algo/Tiny/USDC etc) and – staking pairs.
Pretty much anything to encourage more locked Algo or liquid staking Algo. From my perspective the more we do to encourage scarcity and utility in the ecosystem the better and I’m also big on “What can we do to encourage stronger synergy between defi platforms”.
3 Likes
Hi @mangosteen As you know, the voting process is fully permissionless.
One account with significant voting power has cast its vote in favor of the MOON-ALGO pool — the same account that supported the tALGO-TINY pool in the previous cycle.
The user has locked a substantial amount of TINY tokens, which has granted that substantial voting power.
Any user or project can follow that example by simply locking more TINY to increase their influence and voting power.
During the voting period, the list of participating accounts and their votes is publicly viewable at any time.
However, we are very happy to explore the idea in making LPs eligible for voting as well.
2 Likes