Are you INTR holders aware of how much of the vote to decide the future of Interlay is currently being decided by the volume of vINTRs?

At the moment, only less than 1% of the tokens in circulation are being voted on by a very low number of "willing voters".
How would you feel if the turnout in your country's elections is less than 1%?

What are the causes? I think there is one major cause.
That is, whether you participate in voting enthusiastically or just do staking without thinking and sleep, the rate of staking you get is the same.

Currently, the "motivated voters" continue to make "wise decisions" and those who do not participate in voting are not disadvantaged at all.
However, in the future, when shorting becomes available on the exchanges, for example, there may be cases in which INTR's misjudgment will benefit a certain segment of the population.

Of course, I understand that some people are too busy to participate in every discussion every time.
However, when I looked at the current turnout, I thought the willingness of the holders to participate in the quagmire was too low.

Also, we are fortunate that the discussions that have been the subject of voting so far have been informative and
Those who have not voted are in a position to benefit equally from the decisions of those who have voted.
If that is the case, then we should receive a somewhat higher rate of return for those who voted than for accounts that were simply staked and left alone.
I believe that they should receive a somewhat larger interest rate.

I would expect that having the interest rate vary depending on whether or not a vote is cast would greatly increase participation in the voting process.
This will allow the community to continue to make wise decisions on beneficial matters with a large number of votes from the community, even if malicious votes are generated in the future.

Next, I have a couple of suggestions for changes to the Staking mechanism.
One is to increase the current Staking allocation to 0.8 times the existing amount and distribute 20% of that reduced amount once a month based on the amount of vINTRs that have voted.
This is based on the idea that the profits of the non-voters are supported by the voters, and considers the act of voting as compensation for labor.
Ideally, though, every vote would be cast every time.
To be realistic, we classify anyone who participates in voting even once a month as a "voting participant.

If there are no deals to vote on in a given month, the incentive will be carried over to the next month.
For this deal, all accounts participating in the voting will earn the incentive.

If you have an opinion in favor of or against these interest rate changes, you may participate in the voting to protect your own interests.
We hope to get a lot of people's opinions.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Proposed changes in staking interest rates in proportion to vote participation

### Description

The Interlay - Astar XCM channel will be established and live in this upcoming week. This opens the door for bringing iBTC liquidity to the Astar network and expand the DeFi use cases for iBTC holders. Once there’s enough iBTC liquidity and all requirements are met, Interlay plans to introduce iBTC as a borrowing collateral asset on an Astar money market -currently exploring SiO2 and Starlay-. Interlay will take the first step by creating an iBTC pool on Arthswap, the DEX with highest TVL and asset availability on Astar network.

**Decision to be made: which asset does the Interlay community want iBTC to be paired with on Arthswap?**

As usual, there are a few factors to consider, including liquidity, impermanent loss risk, and diversification of integrations. Please keep in mind that in this particular case, the main goal is to create enough liquidity for liquidations to enable iBTC as collateral for borrowing on Astar money markets. The degree of liquidity in the pool will determine iBTC liquidation capacity which is the single biggest factor for money markets to calibrate the supply cap of iBTC as collateral.

You can find existing trading pairs on Arthswap here: https://dexscreener.com/astar/arthswap

This poll suggests listing one of the following pairs:

## **iBTC pair listing options**

**1) iBTC/WETH**

**Pros**
- Creates a way to get Ethereum users into iBTC without bridging WBTC onto Astar
- High WETH liquidity already on ArthSwap (~$1.3m expecting more to come)
- WBTC/WETH among the most liquid pairs on Ethereum
- Most likely does not require many incentives (high correlation + high quality tokens = low IL risk, high trading volume on similar pairs on Ethereum = high fees)

**Cons**
- Bridging risk

**2) iBTC/DOT**

**Pros**
- Polkadot native pair
- Already good liquidity on ArthSwap (~$800k)
- Most likely does not require many incentives (high correlation + high quality tokens = low IL risk)

**Cons**
- Naturally competes with DOT staking alternatives (sDOT, LDOT, etc.)
- This iBTC/DOT option will be likely deployed on Parallel soon (already voted)

**3) iBTC/celUSDC**

**Pros**
- USD pairs usually have high trading volume, which means more fees and hence less incentives are required to have a competitive APR

**Cons**
- No correlation → High IL risk
- Bridging risk
- An iBTC/multiUSDC is available on Beamswap DEX

iBTC pool on Arthswap DEX (Astar) - Which token pairs?

Last week, the process of opening the XCM channels with Parallel was started as a first step to create additional DeFi use cases for iBTC, such as borrowing and lending. A prerequisite for money markets, and other interesting use cases, is to have enough iBTC liquidity on the Parallel chain. 

Hence, the next step is to create a new iBTC pool on Parallel. Once enough liquidity is built up, we plan to add iBTC as borrowing collateral to the Parallel Money Market later on, once we identify and meet the requirements.

To ensure Parallel users can easily mint and move iBTC over via XCM, INTR needs to be available on the Parallel chain. 

**Decision to be made: which asset does the Interlay community want iBTC and INTR to be paired with?**

As usual, there are a few factors to consider, including liquidity, impermanent loss risk, and diversification of integrations. Please keep in mind that in this particular case, the main goal is to create enough liquidity for liquidations to enable iBTC as collateral for borrowing on Parallel money market. The degree of liquidity in the pool will determine iBTC liquidation capacity which is the single biggest factor for Parallel to calibrate the supply cap of iBTC as collateral.

You can find the top liquid assets on Parallel here: [https://analytics.parallel.fi/amm](https://analytics.parallel.fi/amm)

This poll suggests listing one of the following pairs:

## **iBTC options**

**(1) iBTC/sDOT**

- Pros: Most liquid token on Parallel, additional yield from liquid staking
- Cons: Protocol risk, risk of sDOT depegging from DOT, sDOT yield generation creates ~1% IL p.a. (given constant iBTC price)

**(2) iBTC/DOT**

- Pros: Polkadot native (no bridging or protocol risk), 2nd most liquid token on Parallel, highest availability in the Polkadot ecosystem (measured by market cap)
- Cons: Forgo staking yield when provisioning DOT for liquidity (compared to sDOT)

`--`

## **INTR options**

**(3) INTR/sDOT**

- Pros: Most liquid token on Parallel, additional yield from liquid staking
- Cons: Protocol risk, risk of sDOT depegging from DOT, sDOT yield generation creates ~1% IL p.a. (given constant iBTC price)

**(4) INTR/DOT**

- Pros: Polkadot native (no bridging or protocol risk), 2nd most liquid token on Parallel, highest availability in the Polkadot ecosystem (measured by market cap)
- Cons: Forgo staking yield when provisioning DOT for liquidity (compared to sDOT)

**(5) INTR/PARA**

- Pros: Polkadot native (no bridging risk)
- Cons: Less liquidity than DOT

iBTC and INTR pools on Parallel - Which token pairs?

Last week, the process of opening the XCM channels with Parallel was started as a first step to create additional DeFi use cases for iBTC, such as borrowing and lending. A prerequisite for money markets, and other interesting use cases, is to have enough iBTC liquidity on the Parallel chain. 

Hence, the next step is to create a new iBTC pool on Parallel. Once enough liquidity is built up, we plan to add iBTC as borrowing collateral to the Parallel Money Market later on, once we identify and meet the requirements.

To ensure Parallel users can easily mint and move iBTC over via XCM, INTR needs to be available on the Parallel chain. 

**Decision to be made: which asset does the Interlay community want iBTC and INTR to be paired with?**

As usual, there are a few factors to consider, including liquidity, impermanent loss risk, and diversification of integrations. Please keep in mind that in this particular case, the main goal is to create enough liquidity for liquidations to enable iBTC as collateral for borrowing on Parallel money market. The degree of liquidity in the pool will determine iBTC liquidation capacity which is the single biggest factor for Parallel to calibrate the supply cap of iBTC as collateral.

You can find the top liquid assets on Parallel here: [https://analytics.parallel.fi/amm](https://analytics.parallel.fi/amm)

This poll suggests listing one of the following pairs:

## **iBTC options**

**(1) iBTC/sDOT**

- Pros: Most liquid token on Parallel, additional yield from liquid staking
- Cons: Protocol risk, risk of sDOT depegging from DOT, sDOT yield generation creates ~1% IL p.a. (given constant iBTC price)

**(2) iBTC/DOT**

- Pros: Polkadot native (no bridging or protocol risk), 2nd most liquid token on Parallel, highest availability in the Polkadot ecosystem (measured by market cap)
- Cons: Forgo staking yield when provisioning DOT for liquidity (compared to sDOT)

`--`

## **INTR options**

**(3) INTR/sDOT**

- Pros: Most liquid token on Parallel, additional yield from liquid staking
- Cons: Protocol risk, risk of sDOT depegging from DOT, sDOT yield generation creates ~1% IL p.a. (given constant iBTC price)

**(4) INTR/DOT**

- Pros: Polkadot native (no bridging or protocol risk), 2nd most liquid token on Parallel, highest availability in the Polkadot ecosystem (measured by market cap)
- Cons: Forgo staking yield when provisioning DOT for liquidity (compared to sDOT)

**(5) INTR/PARA**

- Pros: Polkadot native (no bridging risk)
- Cons: Less liquidity than DOT

Now that Interlay network and iBTC launch have been completed and we shared a DeFi roadmap overview, we’d like get your input on the next batch of pools we analysed.

The next immediate step is creating a new iBTC pool on Curve and Beamswap, and there’re a couple of combinations to mix and match.

Regarding Beamswap, we launched an off-chain voting [poll](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/interlay/proposal/QmRnD1yeP3PgVqDRUWpv7HPxTmD93WD66PfhD5xWbbdwAG) to gauge your interest and results were aligned with our previous analysis. Results: INTR, DOT, multiUSDC (in that order).

Based on the results, we would like to propose different options for the pools on Curve and Beamswap, as the decision on the token pair for the pool on Beamswap would also impact the pool to be set up on Curve. We have lined up different combinations which we think would be most useful and align with the community vote. Based on internal evaluations and discussions with Beamswap, we suggest the first option, for the reasons we listed below.

--
**(1) iBTC/USDC (Beamswap) + iBTC/INTR/DOT (Curve)**

Pros:
- One pool that serves many use cases for all tokens used in the Interlay ecosystem
- No additional bridging or protocol risk in the Curve pool
- Meta-pools can be added to the Curve pool that will allow trading of additional assets with that pool without adding any of the mentioned risks to that pool
- All tokens in the curve pool are available for liquidity provision and the pool as potential to grow with the Interlay ecosystem

Cons:
- Centralized (Circle), bridge risk (multichain bridge) in the Beamswap pool

--
**(2) iBTC/INTR (Beamswap) + iBTC/DOT/USDC (Curve)**

Pros:
- Interlay native tokens only (Beamswap)
- Polkadot native asset (no bridging risks)

Cons:
- Centralized (Circle), bridge risk (multichain bridge) in the Curve pool

--
**(3) iBTC/DOT (Beamswap) + iBTC/INTR/USDC (Curve)**
Same as for (2) but in a slightly different setup.

--
**(4) Other options / None of the above**
--

If you have other options that you would like to propose, please leave a comment in the discussion section with your arguments for that specific option.

Some general comments we would like to share on the pools above:

- USDC could be replaced by aUSD or USDT, please indicate if other options are preferred
- Curve pools can be calibrated to have deeper liquidity (less slippage) by design compared to Uniswap V2 like pools
- Meta-pools can be set up to enable trading between a base pool (e.g. iBTC/DOT/INTR) and another token, without introducing the risk, this token bears, to the base pool. You can find more information on this in the [Curve docs](https://resources.curve.fi/lp/base-and-metapools).

---

In addition to the pools above, we are explore the following, which could be added after the execution of the options above, so please leave your feedback on those options in the discussion section:

- BTC 3pool: iBTC/wBTC/renBTC
- Polkadot native pool: L1 tokens of large parachains: ACA, GLMR, INTR, PARA, ASTR

iBTC pools on Curve and Beamswap - Which token pairs?

One of the next integrations, with the fastest time-to-market, is Beamswap, a DEX on Moonbeam (https://beamswap.io/).

The Beamswap team would like to open an iBTC pool - the question at hand: which asset does the Interlay community want iBTC to be paired with?

There are a few factors to consider, including liquidity, impermanent loss risk, and diversification of integrations.

You can find the top liquid assets on Beamswap here: https://analytics.beamswap.io/tokens

This poll suggests picking one of:

**(A) multiUSDC**

- Pros: no 1 in liquidity ($580k), stablecoin.
- Cons: centralized (Circle), bridge risk (multichain bridge)

**(B) GLMR**

- Pros: no 2 in liquidity ($570k), Polkadot native (no bridge risk). Overall high liquidity on Moonbeam
- Cons: volatile asset, iBTC/GLMR pool already on Stellaswap

**(C) multiBUSD**

- Pros: no 3 in liquidity ($370k), stablecoin
- Cons: centralized (Binance), bridge risk (multichain bridge)

**(D) DOT**

- Pros: most liquid asset on Polkadot, used as iBTC collateral, native (no bridge risk)
- Cons: low liquidity on Beamswap, competes with liquid staking

**(E) INTR**

- Pros: Interlay-native pairing, INTR paid to Vaults as rewards, native (no bridge risk)
- Cons: no liquidity on Beamswap, limited on Moonbeam (needs to come via XCM)

**You can vote for one option (your highest preference).**
---
**@Vaults / existing iBTC users**: Please indicate if you are a Vault / existing iBTC user when you vote. Reason: while all INTR holders can and should vote, it helps to understand the demands of already active iBTC users specifically.

iBTC pool on Beamswap - Which asset pair?

Enable vault linear distribution following the withepaper tokenomics description.

Vault block rewards are ready to be activated, according to the Interlay tokenomics: 30% of 4 year supply (i.e., 300 million INTR), emitted as follows:

- 40% in the first year (120 million INTR)
- 30% in the second year (90 million INTR)
- 20% in the third year (60 million INTR)
- 10% in the fourth year (30 million INTR)

See details here https://interlay.subsquare.io/post/6



Vault rewards distribution

See the detailed proposal here: https://interlay.subsquare.io/post/5

Introducing an INTR/IBTC Reward rate

# Summary

When performing the final INTR crowdloan drop calculations, we made a mistake by factoring in only 5% for the early bird bonus instead of 10%.
This is an off-chain proposal and vote on how we wish to compensate the early bird crowdloan contributors.

# Description

When performing the final INTR crowdloan drop calculations, we factored in only 5% for the early bird bonus instead of 10% as announced here: https://docs.interlay.io/#/interlay/crowdloans?id=bonuses. The remaining 5% ended up being distributed to all crowdloan participants instead of only the early bird ones. 

This is a mistake on our side and we would like to remedy the situation. 

# Affected Accounts

- 3502 accounts contributed early to the crowdloan for a total of 1,027,328.436 DOT. They should have received an additional 0.965 INTR per DOT. Hence, a total of 1,583,357.999 INTR should be distributed to early contributors.
- All 14011 accounts received 0.575 INTR per DOT too much. The 5% from the early bird bonus was distributed across all contributors, meaning everyone received more than what they would have received if the early bird bonus would have been correctly calculated.

# Proposal

One way (and probably the only practically feasible) to remedy this is via a on-chain treasury proposal, transferring additional 0.965 INTR for each DOT locked (factoring into account the already received 0.575 INTR / DOT locked) to early bird bonus recipients. 

According to our calculations, this affects 3502 accounts that contributed a total of 1,027,328.436 DOT.

**This would mean a total of 1,583,357.999 INTR paid out by treasury.**

All other accounts that received more INTR are unaffected by this proposal and get to keep additional INTR.

## What is the actual proposal that we want you to consider for this off-chain vote:

Create a treasury proposal to compensate all early-bird contributors that fall under the following criteria/conditions:
1. The account qualifies for the early bird bonus, i.e., they contributed to the Interlay crowdloan before December 24, 2021.
2. The account has to have claimed their tokens via https://crowdloan.interlay.io/ before **July 31 (making this type of major redistribution is time-consuming and we will hence only prepare this once, so as to focus on iBTC).**
3. The INTR received as a result of that proposal would be directly transferable. This means those tokens will not be subject to a vesting schedule. This is due to technical limitations of the Substrate vesting pallet implementation. 

## Why are we doing an off-chain vote first?

Since this is a major proposal and will require preparation, we believe it is best for the community to first align and decide whether this is the way to move forward. 

The final treasury proposal will require an on-chain vote to be executed. We suggest waiting until the end of July to give everyone enough time to submit their crowdloan claim. 