Reduce Max Lock to 60 Days - Encouraging More TINY Locked in Governance

Governance Proposals
1

Should we reduce lock time of TINY to 60 days for MAX TINY power to encourage more people locking?

Logic is simple - nothing helps liquidity on TINY more than the governance locks.

Someone buying TINY requires adding ALGO or USDC to the TINY pool at 100% ALGO to TINY Ratio.

For example if someone simply adds ALGO Liquidity - they retain 50% ALGO and 50% TINY. So they are only really committing 50% of their position to ALGO sided liquidity.

If someone buys TINY to lock up for Governance power - 100% of the ALGO goes to liquidity for TINY, as they did a 100% Algo for TINY swap.

This means 100% of their ALGO was added as liquidity for TINY, rather than the 50/50 split that happens when adding liquidity to a pool.

Logically it is a given, that nothing gives TINY more liquidity than the lock mechanism so this should be deeply encouraged.

The way this could happen fairly for all & be encouraged is:

1/ Any Governor who currently has a lock greater than 60 days, automatically reduces to 60 days unlocking.

2/ The TINY power reduction curve becomes more aggressive as it now has to drop over a 60 day, rather than 4 year period. Meaning if a Governor is inactive for 60 days - their TINY power reduces quicker and their ability to collect similar APY from the weekly claim whilst remaining idle reduces rapidly - it essentially forces activity & punishes inactivity.

3/ Allow TINY to be locked daily to increase TINY Power & make TINY power count immediately from the moment it’s locked - this encourages people to come back to the platform daily to retain their maximum TINY voting power of the new max lock period of 60 days - the more often they come back, the more likely they are to interact with other features of TINY such as swaps which drive fees.

4/ Having 60 day unlock could entice way more TINY buyers, and if they then lock because the risk is lower than the 4 year lock risk it would greatly increase governance participation, but also increase locking, which means the 100% one sided liquidity provision that happens when someone outright buys a token, vs simply adding liquidity to a pool which results in a 50/50 split.

5/ The 9M Airdrop TINY gets added into Governance Rewards to increase it’s APY and encourage further locking.

6/ People who have refrained thus fur from locking TINY, due to reluctance of being locked up for 4 years will get encouraged to perhaps lock for the first time ever, greatly increasing our pool of forum participants, active governors, participation and hence the flywheel. Heck, there is probably a whole pool of buyers wanting to get TINY, that have not, because they do not have utility from it, unless they are willing to lock it for 4 years, which is a big ask for 90%+ crypto participants. We might end up greatly increasing liquidity and buy pressure.

This experiment is already done in the L1 world and the results are conclusive - the chains with the highest staking ratios are actually those with the shortest lock periods - SUI, Cardano and Solana - they vary from no lockup period to a 3 day lock at maximum.

I think this is the lowest cost way to boost trading volumes, governance participation, TINY liquidity, TINY token trading/buy pressure itself, unique daily website visits etc. in on fell, easy to do swoop for the team.

Please cast your votes below :down_arrow:

  • Reduce TINY Lock to 60 Days
  • Leave the Max Lock at 4 years
  • Abstain from Vote
0 voters
1 Like
2

Cool stuff, let’s go!

3

To quote @bernalgo from another thread:

It will only increase sell pressure. The rewards tokens will be sold and not reinvested elsewhere.

It will accomplish the exact opposite of what is intended.

So this is my question: Why on earth would we as a platform want to risk whale govs liquidating after VC’s dumping on us for months and rather horrible overall global-economical environment for assets overall, if we reduced everyone’s max lock to only 60 days? Some of those govs mind you, a pretty large amount, already are not exactly active on the platform, voting in farming rewards distribution, etc.

We want (far) more tiny locked for long-term holding and voting power for the health of the platform, not to reduce lockings to mere months that anyone can then dump at the slightest pump in only a few short weeks.

Liquidity should be derived from governance participation and rewards. The more Tiny govs lock tiny in tiny-paired liquidity, the better.

The BEST way to do both would be to allow tiny-sided LP’s to lock in the governance vault.

Which is a vote we already have ongoing vote for right here, however implementation would be pending resources being available:

Gotta say mate, this looks more like you want an unlock to empty your own bags rather than do anything for the benefit of Tinyman.

Because reducing the max lock to 60 days, means you’d be able to UNLOCK your tokens after 60 days.

As far as the 9M airdrop, pending an on-chain vote we already have an initiative in play for it’s use:

4

Not to be rude, but this sounds like someone wants to get tokens out quickly from the Governance. First farmed with max 4 year lock to get max yield and now wants to find quick way out.

If intention is honest, then I think maybe community can put church in the middle of the town, so to speak and maybe we can reduce from 4 years to 2 years? But I think 1 year should be absolute minimum. Otherwise locking makes no sense.

Just my 2c

Regards,
ROAM

1 Like
5

Are there people that actually sell a token almost 100x down in price?

Show me the example of coins that have already - provably - outperformed those with shorter lock periods such as Solana, SUI?

Polkadot, SEI and ATOM have one of the longest locks out of the Staking coins and check their price performance vs. coins on shorter locks like Ethereum, Cardano, SUI & Solana.

On what logical basis do you conclude, that having a more liquid TINY, with more buy pressure, lower risk curve due to lock up would lead to sell pressure outweighing buy pressure?

I understand the game theory you are trying to suggest - but it negates the effects of buy pressure it would create and would probably decrease sell pressure.

I think you would find that Governers would stop selling weekly rewards, and Farmers would stop selling Daily rewards if they could lock up for 60 days to access the Utility of TINY and you would end up with a much higher staking ratio, much higher buy pressure and way less constant sell pressure of TINY farm rewards and TINY gov rewards.

6

Are there people that actually sell a token almost 100x down in price?

I think you would find that many Governers would stop selling weekly rewards, and many Farmers would stop selling Daily rewards if they could lock up for 60 days to access the Utility of TINY and you would end up with a much higher staking ratio, much higher buy pressure and way less constant sell pressure of TINY farm rewards and TINY gov rewards.

I don’t have to theorise what happens when you have a short unlock time, just look at Staking coins that require coins to be staked to unlock APR rewards utility.

Short staking times = Cardano, ETH, Solana, SUI = Highest Stake Ratios

Long staking times = ATOM, SEI, Polkadot = Lower Stake Ratios

Also, which have performed better in price - those that require long lockups? Or those that have shorter lockups?

Either way, I continue to accumulate TINY and want it to succeed in a big way. Especially in price performance so we can all do well by believing in the project during the depths of the bear.

7

Plenty. I’m expecting a massive sell off once the initial 4 year lock is up from people who haven’t been re-upping their commitment time and only re-locking governance rewards. Especially with the current geo-poilitics and inflation issues. Flipping what you do have BTC or USDC and earning a return on lending to earn back what you’ve lost in tiny.

While VC’s dump on us there are only a few things we as govs can actually do to influence price (given I assume most of us don’t have the deep pockets of SHOB):

One: We can try to rally govs into activity to vote together on important tiny-paired farms:
I for example hold 1.45% of the tiny/usdc LP and am farming it, and I compound all my tiny into it atm. I also try to encourage farming power into it, because even if it does not attract more into the LP, it’ll compound my earnings, and that’s just gonna go back into either: the LP itself atm, and eventually locked up long-term into the gov vault or split into lending markets to encourage tiny use. Eitherway every bit of tinypower going into the LP is going to be send back into the tiny ecosystem from the portion I farm.

I have often championed this, specifically tiny/gobtc, tiny/usdc, and tiny/talgo. The major issue is be the farm rewards 10% or 45%, they don’t tend to draw outside liquidity onto the LP. And lots of the LP continues to just not be farmed at all.

An example is almost 42% of the tiny/gobtc LP isn’t participating in programs farm at all.
Even our largest gov’s backing focus: algo/botsy, only 61% of the LP is actually being farmed, and I suspect that’s something like 96% his own holdings farming.

Two: We can actively buy up tiny-paired LPs ourselves. There’s a LOT of tiny govs. If we all committed to holding say $2,000 each in tiny/talgo, tiny/usdc, and tiny/gobtc LPs and backing them with portions of our farming allotments, we could grow them rapidly.

8

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I still think encouraging more TINY to be locked in Governance and having a high as possible % Governance Staking Ratio is the absolute best thing for price and liquidity long term.

I do not see how adding into a pool at a 50/50 split can be as beneficial for liquidity or price action as putting 100% of USDC for a TINY swap OR 100% of ALGO for a TINY swap and then locking it up in Governance, permanently leaving that liquidity there.

I think the best proposal so far has been the buy back and burns - every time the team buys back TINY and burns they 100% swap ALGO for TINY and then renounce the ALGO portion of that committed ALGO liquidity by burning the TINY tokens that would be needed to re-access it.

So to this end, buying TINY and burning the liquidity is actually the best possible thing that can be done for TINY - however, no one is going to burn their own tokens they just personally bought.

The thing that is close as possible to burning Liquidity is encouraging it to have as much locked up in Governance as possible.

So the question to ask, imo is, how do we convince more people to max lock TINY into Governance and keep it locked in there constantly?

That was the whole logic of the 60 day unlock - I personally would not sell any of my TINY if it was a 60 day unlock, I am sure you would not either nor anyone on this forum - but it would add more buyers who wanted to lock, but did not want to commit to 4 years to be competitive in their TINY power, but are comfortable with a 60 day unlock.

That was the whole point of my suggestion - and as I have mentioned before, I get your game theory thinking people will sell - but it’s actually the opposite from proven experiments as I have demonstrated below - the coins with lower staking times actually perform better in terms of staking ratio and have less active coins for sale on exchanges - SOL, SUI, ADA etc. vs SEI,DOT,ATOM.

9

SOL, SUI, ADA etc. vs SEI,DOT,ATOM.

I’d say these aren’t great examples, we are talking a layer-1 token vs governance tokens after-all. These are very different in term of supply, demand, and overall utility.

Look at our own native token Algorand: 0 lockup, lots of options for liquid-staking, being able to run your own node at cheap rates, staking pools, delegated staking, etc and we are sitting at 24 volume of 16M and at ATLs of $0.084. There’s not enough demand vs supply in the market.

And that’s Tiny’s main issue, far too much supply and little demand, along with low trading volumes compared to a few years ago thus comparatively little being burned vs VC unlocks, farming rewards and gov unlocks.

I do agree that having as much tiny is possible locked up is the goal, however I think a lot of this has caused a bastardization of our own tiny liquidity across the ecosystem.

5/ The 9M Airdrop TINY gets added into Governance Rewards to increase it’s APY and encourage further locking.

This is another big sticking point however: It won’t increase APY hardly any. We are talking about a relative pittance of Tiny for something like that and even the majority of it is going to go to the top 50 holders, the vast majority to the top 100. I’m one of those, we hardly need the boost.

A full 20% of that weekly addition would go to JUST the top two accounts.

All you’d be doing is handing out a lot of free tiny to a handful of accounts.

I think my biggest issues with adding any additional tiny to gov rewards atm is, well most of it is gonna go to just a handful of accounts.
20% to the top TWO accounts.
44.3% to the top 10 accounts.
56.86% to the top 20.
64.12% to the top 30.
69.41% to the top 40.
74.07 of tiny power is located in the top 50 accounts.

Out of 3,712 govs.

When tiny is insanely cheep. (And a stunning amount don’t do the one job we have of doing regularly, voting).

As currently #13 on the list – that added tiny boost to rewards is not going to move the needle much in my weekly payout/ APR, something that currently sits at 15,122.18 and a high 28.17%. A large reason I’ve routinely emptied LPs for tiny and locked them is my tinypower decreasing regularly and needing to “top it off” so to speak.

One of the largest issues in the idle tiny amount is it is not enough to really add much to the average Tiny Gov. And even if it was stored in say USDC where we could use the funds to buy tiny from the market directly and burn it, we’d only almost double our total tiny burned – and VCs would just negated that in the next few unlocks for them. As long as they dump and we don’t have means to absorb, we can’t do much till they are out.

Which is why I like putting it to use in the ecosystem earning us yield. Overtime, especially if driving down rates spurs lending, we could allocate profits to building up our own Tiny paired LPs and have protocol-owned liquidity.

And while it would take some time to do that, we could repeatedly farm those LPs and continue compounding them to build up long-term stability – and at the very least we KNOW that we are not gonna sell those tiny rewards as we earn them. Something that I have pushed for a while now, both here and here.

Except this would cause no additional costs from the team since we already have the funds just sitting around currently not being used.

And imo that’s better than what we can currently do to stem sell pressure – which is basically nothing by ourselves

I’d also note that we currently have a LOT of tiny locked. 42.87% of circulating tiny vs very little in our own ecosystem and it hasn’t done much of anything for price decline long-term compared to the avalanche of VC selling..

10

Again, your arguments are simply not correct :

All the tokens I mentioned are Governance tokens once you lock them up in the Stake.

They have identical utility to TINY via locking:

  1. Generates APY through engaging in a lock up period varying from 3% APY on the low end (i.e. SUI) and around 20% APY on the high end (i.e. ATOM)
  2. The amount of coins you have locked up in staking is your exact % weight in voting power, on all those chains I mentioned.
  3. The coins on L1s are a representation of the L1 usage, as more usage burns more of their coins via utility - TINY also became a representation of TINY Exchange Usage when the vote to convert TINY Fees into TINY then Buy/Burn passed.

Algorand is unique and not a like for like example because unlike SOL, SUI, ADA, SEI, DOT, ATOM - it doesn’t have on-chain delegation of staking.

Algorand staking APY is directly accessed on-chain only by running a node.

Whilst, there is ways to delegate via smart contracts on websites - there is no actual on-chain way to delegate.

Whales and large accounts will not want to delegate via tALGO, or other derivative ways as they do not want to be exposed to smart contract and DeFi risk so only stake using on-chain ways which are secured by the underlying Blockchains.

All of the coins in my example have delegation of stake to validators directly via the blockchain itself - Algorand does not. If ALGO had an easy way to direct delegate ALGO to Validators onchain via Pera/Defly without having to engage with exploitable DeFi Contracts and Websites, you would find it’s staking ratio would skyrocket.

And as per your last point, you regularly come to top up your TINY Power by adding TINY to the lock every once in a while - even though the TINY power decay is relatively slow over a 4 year lock.

How much more often would you top up your TINY Power & come to lock it up at max lock - if it were a 60 day max lock and your TINY Power was deteriorating rapidly every day as it now has to decay over a 60 day period vs a 1,460 day period(4 years)?

And 9M isn’t insignificant - at the bank you get max 6% APY on your deposits - adding 6% APY on the final number isn’t nothing.

If APY jump from 28% to 34% + it creates a buffer as more locks come in for the APY to fall back to around 28% anyway.

1 Like
11

It’s absolutely insignificant spread over a 1, 2, or 3 year period when as I stated before, A full 20% of that weekly addition would go to JUST the top two accounts, as I stated:

All you’d be doing is handing out a lot of free tiny to a handful of accounts.

I think my biggest issues with adding any additional tiny to gov rewards atm is, well most of it is gonna go to just a handful of accounts.
20% to the top TWO accounts.
44.3% to the top 10 accounts.
56.86% to the top 20.
64.12% to the top 30.
69.41% to the top 40.
74.07 of tiny power is located in the top 50 accounts.

You have no idea weather or not reducing Tiny’s max lock to 60 days will actually cause anything to move at all**. You have assumptions.** What we DO know however is that a token that is 95% or so down, in a bad market for Algorand in general, stands a decent chance to cause even more sell pressure from long-time govs who see they can find easy returns else wear and are weary of more losses in the short term from holding Tiny.

We already have the occasional holder who claims things like they’d gladly take a huge loss just to be able to unlock from their four year lock and dump.

Already I often push for more tiny being put into tiny/usdc, and tiny/talgo JUST to buffer us from that initial unlock when VCs are finally out of their own unlocks and the cliff from OG Tiny lockers starts.

Most of our token losses isn’t from govs selling weekly rewards and farming payouts – we can look at the amount of tiny locked in governance vs circulating and infer that. That’s not driving price action down. It’s almost entirely on VC selling + the general weakness of the global digital token scene in general, and Algorand in particular.

60 days to access the Utility of TINY and you would end up with a much higher staking ratio, much higher buy pressure and way less constant sell pressure of TINY farm rewards and TINY gov rewards.

What exactly is this utility to speak of that unlocked tiny will make happen? You seem to think a 60 day lock will cause more total tiny to be locked, despite the fact that ANYONE can already do that. Heck you can just create a different wallet in Pera and lock tiny with that wallet for 60 days if you want to keep your liquidity, have added tiny power, and have a lower unlock window. You don’t get the added multiplier sure, but if you are hopeful of upward price action in the short term it does not really matter and regardless you’d lose that multiplier under your plan./

Further I’d argue the locking ratio is kinda unimportant Locking tiny alone has not and does not offer enough of a buffer to absorb sell pressure. We have 43.21% of tokens locked right now. We could up that by 10% and VCs will still dump on us. We could up that by 20% and VCs will still dump on us. We’ve seen that with SHOB who’s been hoovering up Tiny to the point he holds more than 3x times the next largest gov in tinypower and are STILL sitting at ATLs.

Lastly:

Currently parts of the 9M tiny lock has, pending a full governance vote, already been allocated to a pilot program to enhance liquidity in partner ecosystems, with further experiments pending depending on it’s outcome.

With hopefully assuming things go well, further expansion into other areas in Algorand’s defi system to both earn a return and (I hope) we can use that return to push for other initiatives that can help the broader Tinyman platform without taking funding from fees or other priorities. (Assuming the passing of more on-chain votes).

12

Answer: yes

You also compare large, VC heavy chains to smaller chains, so bit irrelevant comparison.

But when I have thought this even more, I think 4 years is bit too much, so maybe 1 year max lock up time is optimal?

You can still lock for just 60 days if you want. For some reason, feels like people constantly assume, people have to lock with max period.

Regards,
ROAM

1 Like
13

Especially if you’ve gotten those tokens over the long-term of your lock and farming cycles and are effectively free. At least 1/3rd of my lock has been from aggressively compounding tiny/gobtc and farming LPs, building up a large share of the pool, then withdrawing as tiny – particularly tiny/gobtc if bitcoin has had some good weeks. Particularly when kedmd.algo was active, voted regularly, and held a very, very large share of tinypower relative to everyone else. Since my tinypower was comparatively small I realized the quickest way to build it was combining my tinypower with kedmd’s, compound my tiny till I held a large share of the tiny/gobtc LP, and withdrawing it all as tiny to lock.

I’ve been a gov for two years come this December 4th, and I have often built up, and withdrawing tiny-paired LPs as tiny to boost my holding, we are talking locks of 300k, 675k, tiny at a time. I just went through my locks and some 70% of my tinypower was built via large dumping of tiny into the vault.