Introducing an INTR/IBTC Reward rate
Ended 8mos ago
closed
Description
Optionssingle

Votes·22

Yes
Yes
# 1
686.3 INTR
686.3016559175 INTR
I agree with this restriction - will limit initial supply but it's in the long term interest of the protocol. Especially, considering that reaching 140 iBTC should be doable soon.
Yes
Yes
# 1
436.08 INTR
436.0820632042 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
151.64 INTR
151.644816618 INTR
I agree completely. This offer will limit the entry of a large amount of INTR liquidity into the market and support the price slightly. It will also make the distribution of iBTC rewards more fair/even. Need to quickly launch the bridge and integration with Acala and other DeFi. // Я согласен полностью. Это предложение ограничит выход большого кол-ва ликвидности INTR на рынок и поддержит немного цену. А так же сделает распределение наград за iBTC более справедливым\равномерным. Необходимо быстрeе запускать мост и интеграцию с Acala и другими DeFi. //
Yes
Yes
# 1
355.29 INTR
355.2863449631 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
22.5K INTR
22502.1078671357 INTR
No
No
# 2
910.79 INTR
910.7857589592 INTR
I think it is not necessary to add new distribution rule regarding Kintsugi. It works fine with kintsugi, no need to change that. See discussions.
No
No
# 2
684.78 INTR
684.7775217882 INTR
I support setting an initial cap, but I think it should be higher, more like 0.43 INTR/BTC. Our Kintsugi vaults have stabilized at holding 24.6 BTC after 3-4 months of operation, so 0.43 INTR/BTC matches that point on the yellow INTR/iBTC per block curve.
Yes
Yes
# 1
2.56K INTR
2558.039149822 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
686.57 INTR
686.565570474 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
11.76K INTR
11757.8005967111 INTR
I support this proposal, it's getting better and better
Yes
Yes
# 1
678.73 INTR
678.725399846 INTR
Very supportive!
Yes
Yes
# 1
12.8K INTR
12802.0586232847 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
100.42 INTR
100.423459944 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
16.98K INTR
16981.3435890688 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
873.86 INTR
873.8608652266 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
3.8K INTR
3797.9899565044 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
220.29 INTR
220.2905052332 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
120.05 INTR
120.0536416585 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
559.54 INTR
559.5353418371 INTR
500
No
No
# 2
16.32K INTR
16323.2922131746 INTR
I tend to agree that the initial cap per BTC should be a bit higher. Seems here that based on current prices APY will be significantly lower than on Kintsugi which personally will make me think twice of increasing my kintsugi vault rather than lauching or increasing my interlay vault, which is the opposite of the intent of this proposal. Around 0.43 as proposed below would indeed seem to be more adapted: still prevents over-rewarding, but keeps the initial APY sufficiently appealing
Yes
Yes
# 1
3.1K INTR
3100.3290032937 INTR
Yes
Yes
# 1
228.93 INTR
228.9297468994 INTR
1

Discussions·5

8mos ago

I support setting an initial cap, but I think it should be higher. Specifically, I'd suggest that the fixed rewards rate be set slightly above the current rewards rate for Kintsugi to encourage capital to migrate to iBTC vaults to kick off that market's liquidity. If the reward rate is below Kintsugi's, people won't move as much, making it difficult to generate iBTC liquidity and launch defi pairs for iBTC.
I calculate 7200blocks/day * 0.34 INTR/iBTC * $0.11/INTR = $271.7/day/BTC in an Interlay vault.
It looks like we're earning about 121.2 KINT/day/kBTC right now in a Kintsugi vault, so $470.2/day/BTC. (over June 5-29th)
Our Kintsugi network currently has 24.6 BTC, much lower than the 135.5 iBTC target, so we might be in this capped rewards scenario for a little while.

8mos ago

I read the comments and thought, and although I voted - yes, now I think around 0.43 as proposed below would indeed seem to be more adequate

8mos ago

Don't understand why it is a problem to have fixe a distribution like Kintsugi.

I'm not agree with problems :

1- Missing incentive to lock more collateral: INTR/block reward is not tied to BTC TVL, which can lead to skewed incentives during early stages of growth. Until a competitive Vault market kicks off, individual Vaults may lack incentive to add more collateral to enable additional iBTC minting to users.

=> Of course but many vaults are ready to jump in Interlay. So skewed incentives will be only in the first couple of hours. I think many vault take mote time to come in if we limit this game.

2-Flooding INTR to the market: Vaults might sell INTR tokens to recover some of their costs and generate profit. However, if the amount of INTR is completely disproportionate to the iBTC TVL and the maturity and scale of the network, this can lead to too much INTR entering the market early on - which in turn reduces the effectiveness of INTR block rewards as incentive mechanism.

=> Like response 1, I think many vaults take place in the first hours to take high incentive profit, this profit could be sell but I think it could be used for increase collateral so it is a good thing to open the raod for high BTC TVL.

So I think it is not necessary to add new distribution rule regarding Kintsugi. It works fine with kintsugi, no need to change that.

8mos ago

I propose linear INTR distribution https://interlay.subsquare.io/post/6

8mos ago

This proposal merits further robust discussion about the concerns/goals highlighted above, and the balance of risks/incentives among vault operators, INTR holders and iBTC users. Considerations that should be addressed:

(1) early vault operators should receive higher rewards for each $DOT risked as collateral than later-arriving vault operators given the higher risks (as were experienced with Kintsugi);
(2) If a parameter is added that restricts the rewards until a given threshold, then the proposal should address the proposed re-allocation of those withheld rewards throughout Year 1;
(3) APY assumptions used in calculating “appropriate” levels need incorporate that vault operators are assuming delta price risks on both $DOT and $INTR and
(4) every effort should be made to release the vaults with compelling use cases for iBTC.

We would suggest a nonlinear fee structure to reward early entrants and to create incentives to add further liquidity to maintain share of overall rewards.

As an example, start with 23 INTR per block until 45 iBTC is reached then increase to 31 INTR per block till 90 iBTC is reached and then 45.66 once the 135.57 is reached. [These numbers are open to discussion but the concept we believe aligns incentives]

1
Results
Voted
96.52K INTR
96516.223691564 INTR
Voters
22
balance-of
#1
81.43%
78.6K INTR
78597.368197642 INTR
#2
18.57%
17.92K INTR
17918.855493922 INTR
quadratic-balance-of
#1
83.09%
904.45 INTR
904.4490262937 INTR
#2
16.91%
184.11 INTR
184.1101214901 INTR
biased-voting
Yes
Yes
78.6K INTR
78597.368197642 INTR
No
No
17.92K INTR
17918.855493922 INTR
Turnout
Turnout
96.52K INTR
96516.223691564 INTR
Electorate
Electorate
1,000M INTR
1000000000 INTR
StatusSuperMajorityApprove
#1 Failed
StatusSuperMajorityAgainst
#1 Passed