Why I voted “No” on investigating higher CFG rewards based on duration of funds locked
I’ve wanted to explain my vote on the question “The Centrifuge team should investigate giving higher CFG rewards based on duration of funds locked.” - one of the few “No” votes:
The way Tinlake rewards work today this will only be possible at a very significant engineering expense. Given all of this will have to be completely reworked after the launch of Pools on Centrifuge Chain this works would mostly be wasted and take serious engineering resources away from working on Pools.
Why I voted “No” on raising the DROP rewards to the same rate as TIN rewards
Even though the community has voted for changing the overall reward model to a global fixed inflation per year for rewards which is then split up among all LPs (see the discussion here) this has not been implemented yet. Most of the developer attention went into fixing issues with The Graph. So the only way to raise DROP reward rate would be by increasing issuance of CFG. Setting them at the same rate would result in additional issuance of >2% of total supply per year bringing issuance for rewards above 5% annually. I don’t believe this a good idea for the protocol.