This proposal seeks to stabilise Core Liquidity and Reduce Churn and build POL.
Part 1 — TL;DR (Summary)
Proposal: Identify and governance-control a formalised and acknowledged Strategic Pool Set on TLA (Eris Liquidity Hub) to include potentially new pools as agreed by Phoenix Foundation, optimised with variable take rates and changes to incentive balancing and pay out timings.
Purpose: Optimise TLA incentives to buy stable depth in key routing pools, while slowly building Terra-owned liquidity.
It uses two levers:
Take Rates and Sticky Incentives
-
Modify the current take rates, implement pool-specific take rate on strategic pools, routed to a transparent POL / Liquidity Reserve wallet;
-
Raise take rates on all non-strategic pools to encourage divestment and/or dis-incentivise
-
Sticky LP incentives (principal stays liquid): LPs can withdraw anytime, but incentives that have accrued over the epoch are paid at the end of the epoch only. Withdraw mid-epoch → lose what you have earned and you forfeit the unearned remainder for that epoch. Forfeits go to stayers and/or POL.
Governance framing: Terra governance approves the framework + parameter bounds.
Operations: Phoenix Foundation maintains the strategic pool list within guardrails (criteria + cap + review cadence + public reporting + governance veto backstop).
Rollout: start on 1–3 pools for a few epochs, measure depth/slippage/retention, then expand if it works via published mechanics for full transparency.
Part 2 — Full proposal (discussion draft)
1) Motivation
TLA incentives should purchase reliable liquidity, not short-term rotations. When key pools are shallow, everything suffers: slippage rises, routing worsens, and users lose confidence. Strategic pools (USDC rails, routing hubs, in-demand assets) are key infrastructure. They should be treated differently from long-tail pools to generate stability and grow POL.
LUNA–USDC is used as an example only because it is commonly used in routing and therefore has chain-wide impact. The mechanism is meant to be reusable for any pool that meets “strategic” criteria.
2) Proposal: Pool mechanics and “Strategic Pools”
The mechanism to apply governance-approved variability in take-rates exists but hasn’t been as yet applied- this can be modified on per pool basis.
2.1 Scope
-
Lower take rates on a Strategic Pool Set only to improve rewards to holders
-
Raise take rates on all other pools to offset and modify behaviour
-
Change Incentives pay-out mechanism and introduce forfeiture and lock-tiers
2.2 Lever A — Take rate tuning (structural, long-term)
For pools in Strategic Set:
- Apply a modest pool-specific lower take rate to incentivise contributions and improve yield
For pools in non-Strategic Set:
-
Apply a modest pool-specific higher take rate to dis-incentivise contributions
-
Route the incremental take to a transparent destination:
-
POL / Liquidity Reserve (to be agreed), or
-
another governance-defined public wallet.
-
Intent: slowly build an owned, durable base of liquidity for key foundational rails/Terra owned strategic assets
Guardrails:
-
take rate must remain within governance-approved bounds
-
dashboard should be developed to enable transparency for key metrics
2.3 Lever B — Sticky LP incentives (behavioural, near-term)
LP principal remains fully liquid. The only change is how TLA incentives are earned and paid.
These have been broken down into Phases, however these could be implemented simultaneously.
Phase 1: End of epoch rewards distribution + early-exit forfeiture
-
Incentives accrue linearly over the epoch based on time-in-epoch and LP share.
-
If an LP withdraws mid-epoch:
-
they lose earned incentives
-
they forfeit the unearned remainder for that epoch
-
Forfeited and lost incentives destination (options):
-
redistribute to full-epoch stayers in the LP (preferred)
-
route to POL / Liquidity Reserve
-
split (e.g., 50/50)
Phase 2: LP lock tiers
Add “commitment tiers” for higher rewards:
-
Liquid tier: baseline rewards (still pro-rata)
-
Locked tiers: higher multipliers for longer commitment (e.g., 4/12/26 weeks)
Early break affects incentives only, not LP principal:
-
lose multiplier and/or
-
haircut/forced vesting on pending rewards
Phase 3 : Claim choices
Add simple claim paths:
-
Instant claim with haircut
-
Vesting to receive 100%
3) Why the dual approach is better than either alone
-
Take rate adjustments alone is blunt. It doesn’t prevent churn; it just makes the pool less/more attractive.
-
Stickiness alone improves depth now, but doesn’t build a permanent base.
-
Together:
-
lose/forfeit reduces churn and stabilizes depth short-term
-
take rate funds POL to make depth durable long-term
-
churners effectively subsidize stickier liquidity/POL via forfeits
-
4) Governance model and Phoenix Foundation Decision-Making
4.1 Governance vote approves:
-
Strategic Pool choices
-
Parameter bounds (take rate range, forfeiture routing options, etc.)
-
Reporting requirements and dashboarding
-
A backstop veto/pause mechanism
4.2 Strategic pool list ownership
Phoenix Foundation maintains the strategic pool list as an operational parameter for speed and coherence, within guardrails:
Guardrails:
-
publish objective criteria (routing importance, stable rails, volume/TVL thresholds)
-
hard cap on number of strategic pools (e.g., max 5–10)
-
fixed review cadence (e.g., every 4 or 8 weeks)
-
create dashboard for key metrics
-
governance veto/pause backstop if discretion is abused
5) Rollout plan (if phased)
Phase 1 (2–4 epochs): enable on 1–3 pools; implement only loss + forfeiture + modest take rate changes; publish weekly metrics.
Phase 2: decide forfeit destination (stayers vs POL vs split) based on outcomes; expand pool list if it’s working.
Phase 3: timing for lock tiers / claims
6) Initial Thoughts?
Assess the scope of “strategic pools” – are the current take rates fit for purpose and strategically aligned?
Which additional pools required to best benefit these mechanics such as WBTC, ETH, PAXG, Stables etc