RFC: LP Rewards Restructuring Part II

We’re currently voting on a change to the LP rewards discussed in this thread. When revising reward rates a frequent concern is the sudden jumps and the concerns that these jumps are too significant. I agree and want to add a bit of context why this was built this way originally. The answer is quite simple, we built the simplest rewards mechanism possible when we originally designed this. At the time this was a simple fixed rate that would be updated continuously with governance to ensure that rewards are lowered as TVL grew. It is not however how most DeFi projects designed their rewards mechanisms and it’s probably time for Centrifuge to follow suit and modify the mechanism.

To better illustrate the differences I’ve created a graph with example numbers to illustrate how we’ve been going about it.

The current formula for rewards is quite simple:

Total Rewards = TVL * Reward Rate

And the parameter we update via governance is the Reward Rate. This leads to the steps in the rate every time the community votes on a reward rate update. It requires us to either frequently update the rate or try to predict TVL growth to know how to set the rate. If growth is faster than expected the issuance goes above the optimal rate and the protocol thus overspends:

If we changed the model to instead setting a global daily reward that is then split across all users we would solve the problem of having to adjust the rate depending on TVL and the reward rate would go down gradually as TVL grew.

Reward Rate = Total Rewards / TVL

I believe this is a more reasonable model and would suggest to the community that we go ahead and implement this along with the changes in the ongoing poll. If the feedback is positive I would follow up with a poll soon.


Thanks Lucas, this looks great and would certainly streamline the process. Definitely in favor of this being put up as a proposal.

1 Like

Thanks for the detailed explanation which helps to understand the rewards-calculation.

If I understand your proposal correctly you want to propose a total amount of CFG (e.g. 1 million CFG) and the rewards rate adapts to the TVL (a higher TVL leads to a lower rewards rate) which makes sens.

But the total rewards (=CFG to be divided amongst all investors/AOs) are still up to governance votings and a constant review?

Yes they could still be changed by governance. However this would have to happen less often as adjustments for changing TVL becomes uneccessary.

1 Like

I really like this change to the structure of rewards distribution as its a lot more appropriate for TVL growth :slight_smile:

Thank you @lucasvo! I like the approach a lot. It seems more efficient and makes everyone’s planning easier. Will you share the actual model that will be used for the reward rate?

As I’ve written before, every investor needs to have a clear understanding of the remuneration system and we can’t reduce it without a clear system and to warn about the change when we want to.
Therefore, I believe that the transition to the new system is what the project needs and what investors small and large need.
A variable reward system related according to TVLs volume should be perfect for now (maybe with future improvements)

Voted Aye!

Can we also make the rewarded CFG not available immediately? Can we unlock it month by month in the durration of 6 months or something like that? This is crushing the price of CFG.

Hi balamir.

A lockup incentive was previously discussed already and it is an option to rewards long-term investors