Reduce or Reallocate Across ACX LP emissions

Ideas & Feedback
1

Across ACX LPs staked in reward locking currently earn 7.84% to 26.7% driven by base emissions of 20,000 ACX per day.

This is a significant amount given there is currently very little ACX being bridged. The emissions were initially set high to get ACX airdrop recipients to not immediately sell their tokens and to get them familiar with the reward locking mechanism. Given it’s been 9 months since the launch of the token the community should consider reducing these emissions.

In addition, incentives will be added to enhance liquidity on the ACX token. The community voted to end bribes on Aura and instead incentivize the Balancer pool with Reward Locking and also bribe on Velodrome. The generally idle ACX in the Across LP would be better served supporting these pools instead. In total the DAO would be spending 38k to 52k ACX per day on ACX related pools.

20k ACX / day - Across LP
7k -21k / day - wstETH/ACX Balancer pool (1 to 3x multiplier)
11k/day - Velodrome pool (75k per week)
Total = 38k to 52k ACX / day

This is in comparison to the current base emissions for other assets on Across:
~50,000 ACX per day for Across ETH LP tokens
~50,000 ACX per day for Across USDC LP tokens
~5,000 ACX per day for Across DAI LP tokens
~5,000 ACX per day for Across WBTC LP tokens

Discussion: How much should these emissions be reduced? Should we reallocate the emissions to other pools? Some options to consider:

  1. Cut emissions by 50% and don’t reallocate
  2. Move emissions to lower volume assets like DAI or WBTC
  3. Move emissions to higher volume assets like ETH or USDC
  4. Move some portion to temporarily create interest for smaller tokens like POOL and SNX
  5. Add more incentives to ACX liquidity

What do people think?

1 Like
2

Thanks for compiling all the details in one location like this, it’s very helpful.

  1. Move some portion to temporarily create interest for smaller tokens like POOL and SNX

I’m curious how beneficial these teams would find this? And how attractive it would be from a marketing perspective? If we can offer some amount of subsidized rate to onboard your token, perhaps as part of the deal for them to lend RL funds for a relayer or something?

3

Thanks for this proposal.

I do agree the ACX pool is overweighted, and Across could benefit by attracting additional liquidity for higher volume / high utilization pools. I would be in favor of a reduction (but not elimination) of incentives for ACX pool with reallocation to USDC and WETH.

However, we need to evaluate how something like this would interact with the proposal to reduce max multiplier while increasing base emissions by 50%.

With the ultimate goal being to get the most out of ACX incentives (in terms of user and liquidity acquisition), I think we should move forward with the proposal to reduce max multiplier while increasing base emissions by 50% first and then see the response, and then evaluate if we should move forward with this proposal in the future.