I will give a good example here. The liquidity mining of axie’s ronin token, even if the market conditions are very poor today, apy can reach 41%, 15% of apy is better not to carry out liquidity mining, This is a waste of resources
The way liquidity mining is usually structured is a pre-allocation of rewards.
This mean market participants (CoWmunity, COW holders) will deicide the eventual APY by participation.
Initially when liquidity is low, APY is high.
As more capital joins the pool, APY goes down.
If we reach the targets in this proposal ($10m mainnet, $2m GC) then APYs will roughly reach 15%.
But if participants deem this too low, the will not add capital which will drive APY up.
After three months CowDAO should assess the effectiveness of this campaign and its costs ($ spent per $ in pool) and decide future steps.
1 Like
One more point, in order to reduce operational overhead, there’s an option to send 960k COW tokens (12 weeks worth of rewards) directly to Balanced DAO team safe to handle the weekly rewards together with the additional BAL rewards.
Their safe address is 0xc38c5f97B34E175FFd35407fc91a937300E33860
If there’s no objections I will add it to the proposal specification
2 Likes
No objection. Let’s get this out there!
No objections here! 
I support the proposal
I agree and would like to do it on Gnosis
1 Like
YES. I’m For it too.
This means that the initial liquidity official on eth and gnosischain will not be added? Will it be left to the market to price freely?
Id say you can formulate this value with some estimation from how things are going for the Balancer fork, BeethovenX on FTM network. Beetoven Bribes - Google Sheets see here these cases where the “hype” from bribes tends to pay protocols back better than the “hype” from liquidity incentives.
in for it ,gogogogo,fighting
Looks solid! Happy to see a good variety of pools available and hopefully the IL isn’t too bad
I support this proposal and hope it can improve the mood of users
why two separate pools instead of a COW/ETH/GNO multi-pool? And how do we feel about protocol owned liquidity (in the model of what FIAT/OHM just did)?
Also, I continue to be confused by the use of GNO and Gnosis Chain. I understand that’s our roots and thus why the GNO pair may make sense, but is Gnosis Chain really the best place to deploy liquidity?
I agree with the incentive program because in this way we can attract more people to the ecosystem and expand the community.
Just a random newbie thought - Liquidity mining although essential does bite in terms of impermanant loss although there is incentive program to attract said liquidity.
I have heard of some pools which provide impermanant loss protection essentially by guranteeing to the LPs that they would be compensated for any IL by making them whole with the token itself. I.e could you consider something like providing IL protection for LPs which would encourage more users to enter the pool + also protect newbies and relatively inexperienced users by guranteeing that in COW token terms LPs will be made whole.
If there is concern that this may amount to sell pressure there could be other mitigations like vesting of the COW tokens that are provided to the LPs to make them whole or streaming them over a period of time to not create sell pressure.
İ agree go fighting . Goo goo
Fully support this proposal. This is necessary for any solid protocol at the start.