dont see how lowering inflation aka rewards is any different than lowering rewards as result of burning them, both in the essence are the same solution of which burning would have an impact on higher prices at some point. In first case only % of total rewards is burned in second case haircut is subject to all rewards minted and we will still have unclaimed rewards
Quick metaphor.
Say we are a country and preparing for war. Burning tokens is one of our special bombs. We can really only use it once. Why would we pop it now before the war has really started? Wouldn’t it make more sense to wait until we’ve seen more growth? The 100%+ APY is attractive to new investors. If we cut rewards by 36% + … not only will stakers (those loyal bag holders) get less but newbies may be less inclined to stake as well.
Also we have to take in mind the gas fees. If there is already a sizable amount of small holders that don’t claim because of gas fees, well that number is just going to grow if we slash rewards.Then you are talking about unclaimed rewards being 50%+ and small fishes being screwed.
I think there are larger priorities now than burning tokens, but if we do I think it should be a smaller number say 5-10%… not a full fat 36%.
2 Likes
Wise point of view!
But maybe there is better use of the rollover rewards than the distribution to the stakers. Don’t say they shouldn’t get any rollover rewards but maybe only a partional amount and we use rest for pegging lUSD. I think this might be the biggest issue for attracting external traders, despite technical issues, where we have no influence. In context of pegging we could influence supply and demand by using the DAOs treasury or the rollover to buffer the market conditions. If the peg went above 1USD we can buy back lina and the daos treasury could potentionally grow, while lina price will rise too.
Could be a nice way, to stableize the ecosystem in my mind.
Would like to hear all your opinions about this, maybe I can start a new PiP to keep the main discussion clean. What do you think?
1 Like
I am here with u generally what exchange need is STABLE stable and new listings that will attract people/traders aka volume, and bigger volume bigger LUSD rewards.
1 Like
I am open to using some of the unclaimed rewards to assist in pegging lUSD to 1$ because it is important to attract traders… just like having a high APY is attractive to stakers. We need both. I think we just need to agree on a percentage. For me I would like to keep it under 10% personally. I really don’t want to further screw over small stakers who are already losing out to BSC gas fees.
5 Likes
There are some ways to defend against inflation in the DeFi project: backing by increasing the treasury, how the project is being hyped, and how to continuously decrease total supply.
Burning 36% could be a big burden for stakers, but I think it’s a time when the project itself needs a decision to get hype and build a growing model, and for the happiness of the majority.
In fact, 100% apy isnt attractive at all (DeFi 2.0), the most important thing is the linear finance project gets hype and the trading volume of dex goes up.
I think this proposal could be the best we can make at the Dao level.
2 Likes
Would a loan protocol on vault help with pegging LUSD?
1 Like
Honestly I don’t know if that would help or what the best strategy is for for stabilizing lUSD. I will get a standalone discussion posted in General on this subject though so we can get to the bottom of fixing a very important issue.
1 Like
Hey guys so we can fine tune this discussion; please add thoughts to following discussion:
2 Likes