Poll: Tinlake CFG rewards adjustment

This is correct, DROP rates would be raised to current TIN rates. The overall reward rate is obviously subject to further governance and can be expected to likely continue to trend downward with the next proposal IMO.

Thanks for clarity, I updated my Vote to Yes.

1 Like

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.


To add to my earlier response, I believe we should have a discussion around engineering priorities for rewards as both implementing reward rate changes to as discussed in my original proposal in December 2021 as well as the suggestion to investigate a reward rate dependent on the holding period of the tokens would be engineering efforts taken away from further developing pools functionality on Centrifuge chain. @cassidy and I are working on ideas of how to present priorities to token holders to provide input on the prioritization.


Thanks for the colour @lucasvo. I will be changing my vote to “no” on poll 1 and 3 after reflecting on your comments. I encourage others to have a second look at their votes and consider these comments as well. Thanks!

I wonder if there’s any interest EUROC based pool? Harbor’s assets are USD denominated. As we expand our footprint, we are seeing more and more euro assets. This may be a solution for us to support these clients and at the same time offer an alternative for investors concerned about dollar strength.

1 Like

This raises 2 issues for me:-

  1. Is there something wrong with the underlying framework that explains why “most of the developer attention went into fixing issues with the graph” such that what seemed like a fairly simple change could not be implemented?
  2. What is the alternate strategy for attracting/keeping investors in DROP? With an element of luck the crypto market may be near the bottom & gradual appreciation of the market that brings CFG with it is possible, in which case $ yields will rise, but it does not seem wise to depend on this.

I have updated my vote in light of this information, thank you @lucasvo

Thank you for the update - I have also changed my vote, based on that.

However, Poll 1 and 3 are still important topics to address but I agree that in the short term, the focus should be on getting the pools up and running on Centrifuge.

The Graph has been making extensive modifications which meant that modifying any new graphs would required a big overhaul or they would not sync anymore on their infrastructure. This was connected to them pushing development of a new, more decentralized version of the graph.

Indexing the Centrifuge graph now takes > 2 weeks but at this point. This means any change can only be fully tested and verified after a two week delay. In addition the graph has very poor testing infrastructure which we would have to build mostly from scratch. So completely overhauling the rewards infrastructure is probably not worth it given the migration to Centrifuge Pools which would make all of this obsolete.

Given the lack of clarity of what some of the poll options meant and how to implement these I think the poll itself should not be used for a direct council motion but instead based on the feedback @thespaceacatjr you could create another set of polls that more clearly suggest how to adjust parameters that the community can vote as a next step?

1 Like

Yes makes sense - will work on a revised poll that more clearly outlines the choices. Thanks for the feedback.

Thank you for your clarification and for sharing your future vision.
Based on your explanation I revied my vote.

maybe off topic - is there a burn mechanism? if not why? seems like a very good way to reward cfg holders

I would be in big favor of implementing EUROC stable coin in the Tinlake Pools and RWAMarket pool. @ImdioR perhaps start a poll on this? As most investors are from Europe I guess their concern of a currently very strong USD is on top of their list. I’m also curious what the Centrifuge team thinks about implementing EUROC. @lucasvo Something you consider?

Let’s try to keep this on topic. I think the discussion of a EURC makes a lot of sense - a separate thread would be a good idea if there is a desire to discuss this further.

@jagx7, a burn/fee mechanism was proposed by @cassidy for a discussion here: RFC: Additional CFG Token Utility

I too changed my vote to NO on 1 and 3

The Polls are now closed and voting ended.
Thanks, everyone for voting.
55% - No
45% - Yes

Poll 2:
56% - Yes
44% - No

Poll 3:
71% - Yes
29% - No


Thanks everyone for the high level of engagement and participation.

Looks like we will make no change to the reward structure immediately, but I suspect new proposals will continue to come regarding this subject (including from myself!).

In terms of the team investigating duration based rewards I understand the community would like to see some progress there, but we need to be cognizant of the teams development compacity and schedule. I am sure they will investigate this when appropriate and the community can follow up with more detailed proposals of how that might look once more resource is free.

Thanks again.


Thanks everyone for the feedback. The feedback on rewards has been helpful and we are looking to implement the proposed changes as soon as possible. I would like to give some context on what is technically feasible on Tinlake and what changes have to wait until pools go live on Centrifuge chain.

We are currently towards the end of a year long development period of building Pools for Centrifuge Chain which is replacing what Tinlake is doing today. Because we are close to finishing it (it’s already live on Altair!) we want to reduce any new development of features on Tinlake to an absolute minimum: any development work we do on Tinlake could delay the launch of Pools and is work done twice as we need to build the same functionality again on our chain.

Therefore the only viable option for changing rewards on Tinlake is to stay within the system we already have to day and only change parameters we already have today. From what is originally proposed in this we can do the following:

  1. We can set the DROP & TIN reward rate to the same number
  2. We can set AO rewards to 0
  3. Making rewards dependent on TVL (i.e. reward rate = global rewards / TVL) can not be implemented but the community could simply decide to vote on more frequent changes in the reward rate whenever TVL changes significantly.

Incentives for investing longer in a pool unfortunately definitely go beyond the scope so I would say this will have to wait until rewards are implemented on Centrifuge chain.