Great set of comments & opinions–
@johndoh this is how the distribution originally functioned; it scaled the COMP allocation as a function of the interest rate in each market. It was very easily gamed, as users/farmers attempted to use whichever market already had the highest interest rate; first, USDT, then BAT, then DAI. It’s possible that this model combined with vesting/cooldown (Gauntlet is doing fantastic work there) could be viable.
@Sirokko and @aklamun bring up an extremely important point, which is that the distribution was originally (and still is?) intended to distribute COMP to users that want to be long-term stakeholders in the protocol; to participate in governance; not to “farm”. Changes to the protocol or market allocations that decrease the distribution to “farmers” and increase them to “users” (also to @lay2000lbs point) fit this goal.
Increasing the allocation to the large collateral assets (ETH, WBTC) and COMP (and in part, away from stablecoins that could lead to recursive leverage) could begin to achieve this.
And to @tarun and @haseebq’s point–the community should prepare to experiment, improve, and adjust the COMP distribution to best achieve it’s goals.
Taking all of this together, and speaking with a number of you in Discord, I’ve tried to synthesize a “baseline” set of allocations by market, which we can then run experiments against.
This baseline:
- Maintains the current total distribution (
0.1760) - Creates a modest allocation to the primary collateral assets (which didn’t exist previously due to a lack of borrowing demand)
- Standardizes (but doesn’t materially increase) the allocation to secondary collateral assets
- Maintains large allocations to stablecoins, while setting DAI and USDC to be equal to eachother as a point of reference for future experiments
- Increases the allocation to COMP
Does this jive with everybody’s thinking?