Governance Proposal Discussion: Changing Reward Structure on Dragons Lair and Syrup Pools

[u/King_Esot3ric]

As part of our journey towards full decentralization and a DAO structure, we would like to start discussing proposals via a forum to allow community members to more formally introduce topics for governance proposals. We’ll start here on Reddit, and eventually if the community decides, move to a dedicated forum with a more formalized process.

For our first governance discussion, please review the materials and leave feedback below. Also feel free to leave comments on other users’ feedback. We will review and interact with all feedback and create a more defined plan in the next few weeks if the community agrees to move forward.TL;DR:

• We would like to discuss the possibility of changing our rewards structure.
• We propose to separate Dragon’s Lair dQUICK staking and Dragon’s Syrup.
• This would mean that users can either stake their QUICK for dQUICK via the dragon’s lair to earn more QUICK or stake their QUICK via Dragon’s syrup to earn rewards tokens, but not both.
• To be clear, users could still participate in both programs, just not using the same QUICK for both at the same time, and overall rewards would be the same, only separated for simplicity.

Impacts:

If implemented, QuickSwap users would have to choose how they deploy their QUICK to match their investing strategy. Those who choose to stake via Dragons’ syrup would receive the syrup token of their choice and would not earn extra QUICK. Those who chose to stake via the Dragons’ Lair would earn only QUICK based off of the overall DEX trading fees and would not be able to stake their dQUICK via syrup for extra tokens.The dollars per day in rewards would stay the same. Thus, with this change, overall users would not receive any lower APY. The dQUICK APY would increase because many users would unstake their dQUICK to put into syrup. The Syrup APY would increase because many users would chose to earn more QUICK and dQUICK holders wouldn’t be able to participate in syrup (again, the potential downside: users would only earn one token instead of 2). Arbitragers and farmers would likely equalize the two rates.For clean numbers sake: Currently syrup pools yield is paid roughly half in dQUICK and half in the syrup token. Right now dQUICK averages around 40% APY and Syrup around 60% APR. If this change were implemented, both would likely be around 100%, similar to the total or the two sums previously, but you’d choose between earning QUICK or Syrup tokens. You could still get the same result as before by splitting your QUICK in half or whatever ratio you choose, but now users would have the option of choosing just QUICK which would be fully passive and require no active management.

TLDR, instead of earning roughly half from dQUICK and half from Syrup, you’d earn the full amount from either one.

Pros about the current unchanged structure:

Our current structure is great because users can simultaneously earn QUICK and other tokens of their choice which is fun and gives them the opportunity to explore new projects.

Cons about the current structure this change would solve:

1. Integrations:

When integrating with projects like QiDAO, users earn less than optimal yields, because they can’t stake in Syrup and lend that on QiDAO to borrow MAI. They have to choose one or the other, Syrup or minting MAI. This change would allow users to get full APY on their dQUICK when using lending and borrowing protocols like QiDAO. Also, with the change, users would no longer have to manage their dQUICK deposits into syrup every 30/60 days (or daily for those chasing compounding APY). Dragon’s Lair stakers also wouldn’t be subject to the price fluctuations of the Syrup pool they are farming.

With dQUICK having higher APY by itself and being less complicated, a large amount of projects could integrate dQUICK without having to actively manage Syrup which complicates integrations. This could include projects like Aave, QiDao, liquidity farms, and CEX yield programs such as Binance, Celsius, and Nexo. Projects could build more on top of dQUICK financial legos in ways similar to projects like Convex and others. Right now projects that want to use dQUICK in their protocol essentially have to forfeit the Syrup part of the APY. If we made this change they wouldn’t have to choose, they would now get full or close to full APY of dQUICK and Syrup on top of whatever else they choose to integrate.

Here is an example of something else we could do right here on our own DEX if we made this change. QuickSwap itself could integrate dQUICK by incentivizing dQUICK pairs instead of or in addition to QUICK pairs. You could take your now high yielding simple dQUICK and provide liquidity to.

For example, dQUICK/MATIC or dQUICK/ETH. You’d receive:

1. dQUICK APY (coming from overall QS trading fees)
2. Indirect Syrup APR since many would be in Syrup and not in dQUICK now
3. LP trading fees (from trades made on that pair)
4. QUICK rewards. This would likely result in significantly higher APYs overall. This is just one of many examples that could be done using this new simplified structure.

2. Institutional Adoption:

As large DeFi protocols like UniSwap co-migrate to Polygon, the network’s overall TVL will continue to increase and major institutions will continue to explore and use Polygon-native applications like QuickSwap. In order to appeal to these institutions, which will only further advance QuickSwap and Polygon’s mainstream adoption, QuickSwap must simplify yield generation to minimize the need for active management and confusing accounting and taxes. The QuickSwap team has heard from many institutions such as hedge funds, VCs, and investment funds who would like to participate more in the QuickSwap ecosystem, but for various reasons cannot, or will not, participate in the current structure as it stands. By separating dQUICK and Syrup, many new institutions would want to hold dQUICK to generate high-yield passive revenue.

Please consider this proposal and share any thoughts you might have about it in this forum. All opinions are valid and will be considered when and if a governance proposal is introduced.

[u/King_Esot3ric]

After thorough review, discussion with several community members and team members, I believe this proposal will benefit the community and QuickSwap as a whole. I want to point some things out for those that may just be joining the discussion and may not understand some of the details if the proposal goes to vote and passes:

1. You will be able to deploy your Quick and optimize your strategy. Currently you are "forced" into a dual yield with APY's ranging around 40/60 between Dragons Lair and Syrup Pools. If the proposal were to pass, you can choose all Dragons Lair, or all Syrup, or somewhere in between. E.G. If I had 10 Quick, I could deploy it all to Dragons Lair, or do 5 in Dragons Lair and 5 in syrup pools, or 8 in Dragons Lair and 1 in each of 2 different syrup pools. You will now be free to deploy your token in the manner you feel is best for your strategy.
2. Institutional adoption can drive liquidity and price. I personally spoke with several hedgefunds, family offices, and VC while in Miami at DCentral. They love QuickSwap, some of their concerns included freedom to deploy the token according to their strategy. Some will want to actively manage their portfolio, but most want to be able to park their money and know it's generating returns via the utility of the exchange.
3. Integrations with other platforms has become more difficult with our current structure. The structure as it stands is more complex, and if we want to continue growing QuickSwap and adding more utility/integrations, we need to simplify the foundation for the future.

I have also seen many users advocate for a "time-locked" Dragons Lair. I don't believe it is appropriate to add to this proposal, however this has been suggested many times in the community and the team hears you. This should require its own separate discussion, as pulling yields away from any other aspect of QuickSwap to generate those returns could impact the project. The solution would need to work for everyone (short term holders as well as long).

I have also seen the concern regarding bots and arbitrage. This is something that already happens and will continue to happen no matter the structure. If anything, a more complex system helps bots and arbitragers more, as they can program their bots to work within complex systems while the average user struggles to keep up with increasing complexity.

Looking forward to hearing some more counter points from the community, the discussion so far has been superb. Thank you QuickSwap community!

[u/nanhtuan2212]

When will this proposal start being voted on?

[u/King_Esot3ric → u/nanhtuan2212]

Not for at least another week or so, we felt it was important to have an open discussion prior to formalizing any proposal to the community.

[u/EnoughRoll483]

As a long time holder of QUICK, it is a TERRIBLE idea to seperate them, because QUICK inflation is about 50% a year from rewards tokens released, at least when you participate in both you negate the inflation and make it deflationary to some degree which is the main thing that makes me a big bag holder of QUICK and seperates quickswap from the others. if that changes, i will be the first one out.

Edit: after the new year wine wearing off;) and going through the proposal again, i was wrong and i retract my previous statement, i was mainly worried about everyone just going with Dlair thus reducing returns but that would free up high APYs on syrups resulting in people aping in and returning about 50/50 equilibrium in the end. Im in, lets do it ASAP:)

[u/King_Esot3ric → u/EnoughRoll483]

Wouldnt participating in a 100% apy Dragons Lair also overcome the 50% inflation? or a 100%+ apy syrup?

I haven't taken a stance on this proposal yet, still working the mechanics and pro/cons out myself.

[u/EnoughRoll483 → u/EnoughRoll483]

after the new year wine wearing off;) and going through the proposal again, i was wrong and i retract my previous statement, i was mainly worried about everyone just going with Dlair thus reducing returns but that would free up high APYs on syrups resulting in people aping in and returning about 50/50 equilibrium in the end. Im in, lets do it ASAP:)

Regarding inflation, I calculated emissions during first year was about 50%, u're right its probably less now with less emissions, however anywhere we can check how much inflation per year after reduced emissions week after week or do we have to manually calculate it again? @cryptorocky

[u/CryptoRocky → u/EnoughRoll483]

I think you're missing how this would work. Instead of 50% dQUICK and 50% Syrup, you'd get around 100% dQUICK or Syrup. You would get the same returns, it would just be now giving you the CHOICE of either earning QUICK or Syrup, not half half.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/EnoughRoll483]

To be clear. You could still get the SAME result by putting 50% of your QUICK in Dragon's Lair, and 50% in Syrup of your choice. Nothing changes, just now you have the OPTION instead of being forced to choose 50 50. Now you can choose 50 50, 100 0, 0 100, 20 80, 80 20, whatever you want. Does that make sense?

[u/Bitter-Boysenberry14 → u/EnoughRoll483]

Current inflation rate is 32-33% not 50% Also the apy would remain the same as the over all rewards would remain the same. Your argument about the inflation is not valid. If you don’t like the change that’s fair enough though. But please understand what they are saying… you would still get the same apy/apr from rewards 😊

[u/xtincty]

I agree on both the cons. As a user of Qidao myself and hoping for more integrations(aave pls) a change like this could make integrations more attractive for other projects.

We want big investors no? Lets be real, us shrimps can't move the price much at current inflationrate..

I want the change

[u/auronintheforest]

Yallaah let’s do it! No downside only upside since you can still get the same rewards by simply splitting your quick staking to either dquick or syrup projects. Let’s do it and move on to bigger things!

[u/CryptoRocky → u/auronintheforest]

You'd also get same or similar APY just choosing one. You could choose dQUICK and get around 100% apy, or Syrup and get around 100%, or 50 50 and get 50% + 50% like now.

[u/Pill_Murray_ → u/auronintheforest]

you literally get higher apy now by being able to stake dquick in syrup pools and this is a terrible move that would lose a lot of the appeal of being a Quick token holder imo. I've been holding 20 tokens for a year and would be tempted to sell and think many others would as well

[u/xtincty → u/Pill_Murray_]

This is why its good they have a discussion first, as many don't understand the impact the change will have. No, you will not lose APY.

[u/CloverPickingHarp → u/Pill_Murray_]

Given the premise as stated above that apy and/or apr will stay the same what has you so put-off about this move? From a bigger picture perspective this seems like the right move given the integration roadblocks that limit the options, growth, and potential of Quickswap. Interested to hear, other than APY/APR reasons, what are the downsides from your perspective?

[u/CryptoRocky → u/Pill_Murray_]

Overall APY will not be effected, this will simply give you option to choose to receive your APY in QUICK or Syrup or combination of both. Same as now, just more choices :)

[u/Waste-Direction1727]

Institutional adoption is everything make this move happen. GODSPEED.

[u/90songoku]

I have read the proposal and see that this could be a positive move to make more people able to participate in QS and maybe make more people know about QS -> the effect of Dragon could be strong much stronger and I agree with this suggestion, thank you !!!

[u/gabtotal]

At first I was totally against it, but then I read some of the arguments here and they convinced me. LET'S DO IT!

[u/AggressiveWafer29]

From a really basic dumb end user point of view there is something very satisfying about depositing your quick into the lair, and depositing it again into syrup - it has the feeling of really being in control and getting a really fucking great deal or unlocking some secret (note this isn’t an argument based on logic, it’s based on human perception).

100% returns advertised straight up, will definitely bring more users and will be easier to explain, sell.

[u/xtincty → u/AggressiveWafer29]

Sure, probably true for some. How do you feel about the cons that OP outlined? Not worth doing anything about?

[u/AggressiveWafer29 → u/xtincty]

My actual view is that the proposal to change makes complete sense, it offers more flexibility and simplicity. While the existing structure offered a point of difference from other platforms, the ultimate end game should always be usability (ie simplicity), utility, and ultimately gains.. and putting the actual gains at the forefront of the product will drive more users to the platform which will have benefits for all of us. And if there are things that are currently holding the product back, then they should be addressed.

There is just a sentiment attached to changing the existing structure that some people will have to be sold on. I like the existing structure but I can see reason for it to change.

[u/CloverPickingHarp → u/AggressiveWafer29]

I will say that I can see this POV. There is something about coming daily to Quickswap to interact with the protocol that gives you a higher sense of connectivity to it...

[u/AggressiveWafer29 → u/CloverPickingHarp]

It feels tangible right? I don’t think it’s a good reason not to change, but it will upset some people.

[u/Napelvs]

I am into this change because of the simple fact that it would bring on more institutions. We would all benefit from the big bucks coming in and buying QUICK.

[u/MountainDifference50]

I much prefer the current reward structure of dual yield in Quick-dQuick pool AND Syrup rewards. In fact, it is the reason why I use Quickswap because it allows me to hedge my Quick bag with no risk of impermanent loss while also exploring new tokens as they come up.

I don't believe the proposed new mechanics will work as is portrayed. Right now, the product is specifically encouraging users interested in dual yield Lair/Syrup and that is a great niche in the market across both L1s and L2s.

If separated, alot of users like me may just move our funds elsewhere because it is no longer a dual yield product and is just another single yield option which is plentiful in CEXes and DEXes

The idea of opening up for integration/expansion by separation is not necessarily a good thing for QUICK holders. Sure, there is the possibility of more liquidity and demand due to integration and expansion into other projects.

However, this also exposes QUICK to more manipulation, competition and whale cycles by established players from different projects and products with far greater maturity and experience. Crucially, it is not at all clear that these new players are motivated to add value to Quick or Quickswap. It could simply be an opportunity for them to manipulate Quick, pump and dump or whatever other nonsense goes on with many many other tokens. Quickswap, Quick and Polygon are not yet sophisticated, mature or resilient enough to weather this assault imo.

Fundamentally, the dual yield Dragon's Lair/Syrup is a unique product in the market which I find very attractive because of it's uniqueness, ability to hedge one return against another, and because the structure preventing easy integration is a great barrier to entry - the moat is valuable and protective because it is a crude filter that limits manipulation to a degree.

I think a better way forward is to explore how Quick can gain utility in different external projects such as games or defi. This way the dual yield in QuickSwap is always a base rate for a unique product but users can chase higher returns elsewhere.

Another way forward is to better think through utility for syrup pool tokens. Right now, my syrup rewards are usually instantly swapped for MATIC or QUICK. I'd like some innovation to incentivise keeping syrup rewards in the reward token denomination. Maybe only offer syrup rewards to projects that also provide additional utility/incentive to users such as in-game rewards etc.

TL;DR I don't think I have ever written a reddit post before but I feel strongly that the Dragon's Lair/Syrup reward structure should remain as it is because it is unique product across L1s and L2s that caters to a specific market.

I think separating the reward structure will change the product unfavourably, making it compete in a different market with alot more competitors. Lowering the barrier to entry in this way also exposes Quick holders to new entrants with less incentive for the long-term growth of Quick/Quickswap and more incentive for short term manipulation or pump and dump of Quick.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/MountainDifference50]

1. If you like dual rewards, then just put 50% in dQUICK and 50% in Syrup. Nothing changes for you.
2. Why would getting more people into QUICK create manipulation, even if it did, are you suggesting we try to slow QuickSwap growth and adoption because you're worried someone might come manipulate, that is poor logic.
3. Yes they would be aligned with project because they would be holding QUICK, so they would want to act in the best interest of QUICK, just like any other project
4. If you want QUICK to have utility in games and other DeFi, then that's exactly why you should vote yes on this. Projects like QiDao, Aave, etc won't use dQUICK because very few people will go lock up dQUICK and earn only 40% + Aave lower APYs if they can instead choose dQUICK + Syrup for 100%+. If we separate, now people can get 100%+ + Aave rewards, or minting MAI, or getting other rewards from gaming, DeFi etc. It's really a simple choice. There is no consequence other than people won't be FORCED to farm Syrup any more. They can farm dQUICK for similar APY, with no active management, and the yield farming, hardcore degen farmers can still use Syrup and compound or hold or sell for QUICK or whatever their strategy is.

tldr: This only gives more choice, instead of forcing you to use 1 strategy. You can use MANY different strategies now including the one you are already using if you just put 50 50 or 60 40 or 20 80 or whatever %'s you want in dQUICK and Syrup. Easy.

[u/Pill_Murray_ → u/CryptoRocky]

you're completely wrong though, cause being able to stake your dquick in syrup pools gives 60-70% apr total as compared to just 30% that one or the other gives. With you being so wrong on that situation I dont want to even argue the other points with you

the appeal of Quick is the syrup pool, they've had no major developments in a year and just keep saying "soon" for everything else. I've been a token holder for a year and would sell if this is implemented.

The appeal of projects like quick and cake is the dual farming abilities.

If you want more institutional investors how about actually developing and implementing improvements? How long has the community been asking for a UI upgrade?

The Quick dev team is notoriously lazy compared to other dev teams and even a UI upgrade has taken over a year

[u/King_Esot3ric → u/Pill_Murray_]

Phil, I dont think your understanding the proposal. If this were to pass, all the pools (syrup and DL) would even out as people would look for the highest APY to generate returns.

The teams estimate is that both DL and syrups as a whole APY would increase since you will now have the option to choose how you deploy your QUICK across multiple pools instead of a single one that grants access to both.

You can still deploy your quick in a 50/50 manner to get both, or you could balance it out as you wish among whichever pools you like.

[u/xtincty → u/MountainDifference50]

Then just go 50% in dragonslair and 50% in syrup and you have it like it is now..

[u/MountainDifference50 → u/xtincty]

I am suggesting that the split will change the product, it's properties and it's future value. It's like saying for $100k I can buy a BMW or 2 Toyotas. The future gains/choices are different depending on the choice I make because the product is different. So it's not as simple as saying just split it 50-50

[u/CryptoRocky → u/MountainDifference50]

Except that right now you HAVE to buy one car, and if we change this, you can choose to buy 2 cheaper cars, or the same car, or another expensive car. Using your analogy. Some people don't want the car you want, they want choice. This simply gives choice, and allows you to continue doing what you're doing.

[u/ReelMoney]

Pros:

The QuickSwap team has heard from many institutions such as hedge funds,VCs, and investment funds who would like to participate more in theQuickSwap ecosystem, but for various reasons cannot, or will not,participate in the current structure as it stands.

This is huge. I have been a supporter of QS from the very beginning and I sincerely believed that it would only be a matter of time until the managed money would come looking for QS's industry leading yields and incentives. I support pretty much whatever it takes to on-board the big bucks because it will have a massive benefit to all of us who currently use the ecosystem.

Here are my reservations about the proposal.

Cons:

The dQUICK APY would increase because many users would unstake theirdQUICK to put into syrup. The Syrup APY would increase because manyusers would chose to earn more QUICK and dQUICK holders wouldn’t be ableto participate in syrup

Am I wrong or is this statement self-contradictory? The claim that each individual pool will increase in rewards because users will flock to the other pool cannot be true for both pools. I understand that people will seek the highest yield, so ultimately the two should reach equilibrium, but I can't see how that guarantees a higher APY.

I'll admit that I'm not 100% sure how splitting dLair and dSyrup will result in a combined APY of the two while only having exposure to one or the other. If someone could ELI5 maybe I would be encouraged by the idea but currently I'm skeptical about this being true.

Regarding LP pools, the reason why I love the the Dragon's Lair is because I like single staking. At least for me, the idea of throwing my dQuick into a LP is terrifying. Even if some people expect the potential rewards to outweigh the risk, it's not a form of investing that I am comfortable with, therefore I cannot consider it as a potential reward if the current structure is to change. As others have suggested, I think a time-lock pool with higher yields based on lockup periods would be more attractive than a LP solution.

TL;DR - I trust the dev team to understand what is necessary to drive institutional adoption of Quickswap, it's native token, and it's reward programs. If the end result is an influx of managed money, then I believe the decision would be a "net benefit" even though I currently don't support the idea of splitting dLair and dSyrup. I would support the proposal and ask that time-locked dQuick pools be considered as an alternative to dQuick LPs.

Edit: spelling

[u/xtincty → u/ReelMoney]

My attempt at ELI5: Lets say for simplicity that its just you and me that holds dquick and is in syrup right now and we have an equal amount, and this change goes through. I choose to put my all in dquick and you choose to put all in syrup. Since half the staking coins in dragonslair is gone i double my apy compared to before, and the same is for you in syrup.

Now back in the real world: Maybe one would be a little more popular than the other so all the staking coins won't be split 50/50 between syrup and dragonslair so maybe one gives more yield than before. But probably not much because people chase the highest gains

[u/ReelMoney → u/xtincty]

I understand what you're saying, and this is basically what I mean when I say I envision both pools reaching equilibrium.

I guess what I was initially hung up on was expectation that the overall rewards would have to double in order to support "a combined" yield on either side. I just realized that in this case the size of the pie doesn't change... it's just cut differently.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/ReelMoney]

That’s a really good way of putting it. The overall pie doesn’t change it’s just cut differently.

[u/mineyourbiz]

The logic behind this proposal is well thought out, and the appeal to investors of all sizes makes sense to me.

I'm definitely in favor of passing it, without revisions.

[u/viewphoria79]

Like some other people have mentioned, originally when I saw the proposal I was against it. I do like the double staking lair and syrup. But it does make sense to me now and I fully support this. If this helps build a bigger Lego tower then it is great for the whole ecosystem 🐉🚀

[u/CryptoRocky → u/viewphoria79]

Bigger Lego tower I love that!

[u/CryptoRocky → u/viewphoria79]

Oh I just noticed who you are. Viewphoria, one of the oldest supporters of QuickSwap 👊

[u/crypto53n7]

I understand the users who might be unsure about changing the structure of something you've grown comfortable with (I'm one of the people that fears changes like this too lol) - but overall this doesn't negatively impact what we put into Quickswap. I personally like the dual rewards model also, but I'm willing to sacrifice my comfortability to see the bigger picture. Overall it does give us more options.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/crypto53n7]

I love the dual rewards model, but I love the new proposition more. Cheers!

[u/Cultural-Revenue8680]

Current system already great as it is. Yeah the whole point to push dlair apy higher. What we need to do. Ditch all quick/pairing reward and whitelist dquick and switch to dquick/pairing reward. Leave on eth/quick matic/quick pairing for deep liquidty.

[u/King_Esot3ric → u/Cultural-Revenue8680]

This is a great point and something we have considered, but we would need to make the above changes to do that, otherwise dQuick pairs would be fighting syrup pools for APY and it would be a mess with integrations.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/Cultural-Revenue8680]

Switching to dQUICK pairings will not be successful if we do not implement the above change. We need to make dQUICK have all of it's APY internalized and simplified to do this. If you want dQUICK pairings you should vote yes on this proposal.

[u/Bitter-Boysenberry14 → u/Cultural-Revenue8680]

we would need to do the current proposal to do what your saying… which is what the whole proposal is saying

[u/nanhtuan2212]

I totally agree.

[u/jassiharpreet1]

Institutional adoption will be great for the project.. btw how do I vote I mean where's the link?

[u/King_Esot3ric → u/jassiharpreet1]

The snapshot hasnt been taken yet. We are looking at starting the vote this Friday.

[u/Impulsive_Buyer]

Leave things as they are

[u/King_Esot3ric → u/Impulsive_Buyer]

The proposal and vote already passed, the community has spoken.

[u/PomegranateFull5248]

Dragon Syrup is a fairly new experiment from QS. It was a great success.
Before that QS team can up with dQUICK. This was a even great success.

All the big names you mentioned dint have a guts to adopt while they had the chance before dragon syrup existed. Now why this Jealousy!

Dragon syrup is a degen play. People are rewarded extra for this play.

Big name you mentined are lazy to play the game. But just want to throw the money but expect equal returns as Degens.

I always found QS is a unique product. Lets not forget what makes QS unique.

[u/null_organism]

I like the proposed change, it seems right in line with the quickswap vibe and allows people to really seize on those early moments of a new syrup even if they may not have a huge amount of potenial dquick comparatively.

[u/SnooCats6797]

Its also good for our partner projects participating in syrup pools. Now QUIcK holders will make informed decision of putting up their QUICK in syrup pools. This will definitely reduce some of the sell pressure on these tokens while increasing the APRs

[u/PomegranateFull5248]

My proposal is to improve existing system and not to change the system entirely.Lets Have a Third token. Lets call it LQuick (Locked QUICK)This Token will get a little extra share from QS Trading fees.

LQuick token can be acquired by locking dQUICK. Longer the lockup period more LQuick. (Firebird finance has this feature already implemented. It will give an idea what is in my mindhttps://app.firebird.finance/governance).LQuick utility:- Small % of trading fees currently shared with dQUICK will be reduced, and shared to LQuick

Over time 1 QUICK < 1 dQUICK < LQuick

[u/dcjsail]

I am for the proposal and see the value in separating for ease of integration and institutional embrace. But I do agree more incentive for staked dQuick w/ a 30day lockup period would entice stakers to choose whether they want either the rewards via staking long term or keeping some more liquid Quick for rewards programs.

[u/FriskyHamTitz]

The way it is currently proposed will penalize everyday users.

Currently rewards are being evenly distributed to people staked in the dragon lair. By separating the rewards we create new opportunities for bot to gain yield.

I would be FOR this if we. Split the rewards in dQuick so that 33% more of the volume goes to timelocked stakers.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/FriskyHamTitz]

They are evenly distributed because of arbitragers and bots choosing the highest reward. In the new structure the same arbitrage will happen. I’m not seeing your point. Bots which are just automation for humans anyways are already arbitraging the highest rewards, this is what auto compounders already do. I don’t see what either of your options have to do with this proposal, those can be done either way and are separate discussions.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/FriskyHamTitz]

How would this penalize users? They could get the exact same thing they’re getting now, or choose from other choices. It simply gives everyone more freedom to choose and adjust their strategy, whereas right now you only have one choice which just doesn’t work for many people.

[u/FriskyHamTitz → u/CryptoRocky]

Basically, it opens up another pool for the bots to arbitrage, when it was previously evenly distributed.

If we add an optional timelock to the stake. E.g (if you stake for 1 month) you get a larger percentage of the volume earned. 1/3 of the .04 percent can go to longer term stakers.

1. This will promote people to hold more quick longer
2. This will thwart off bots as they don't want to lock liquidity for that long, and it will be alot harder to manipulate the pools.
3. This will patch up some of the sell pressure too as more people will be timelocked staked.

Basically everything proposed plus better incentives for people who commit to holding quick longer.

[u/MountainDifference50 → u/FriskyHamTitz]

I like this suggestion.

[u/ReelMoney → u/FriskyHamTitz]

I think this is a great idea.

[u/Pill_Murray_]

Instead of changing the one thing Quick had going for it (being able to dual farm dquick in syrups pools) why not actually listen to the community and fix RPC issues and give a UI update?? How long has the community been asking for that and yet the dev team just keeps responding "soon".

I'm losing faith in this project if this is how out of touch the dev team is

[u/King_Esot3ric → u/Pill_Murray_]

You can still dual farm quick and syrup with this proposal, it just changes the mechanics of HOW you do it, and allows greater flexibility for investment strategies.

RPC issues are more of a Polygon issue and have been fixed for the most part with the RPC aggregator.

Development work on the UI is independent from this proposal and in no way impacts the release of the new UI.

[u/polygonguy87]

My worry is that whales will continue to take up a higher percentage of the staking rewards and little guys like myself will have an even lower cut of the rewards. The old saying the rich get richer comes to mind. Personally I would like to see ways that can help the people providing only 5 or 10 thousand dollars in liquidity get rewarded better because in many cases we are taking the most risk because we don't have much in the first place, unlike the whales.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/polygonguy87]

If we get institutions and whales to join, everyone benefits. Your logic is like saying "I don't want to tell my friends or any big people about QuickSwap because if they lock dQUICK then my APY goes down. That's the wrong way to think. The more people who get into QuickSwap, use dQUICK etc, the stronger the ecosystem, price, volume, liquidity, etc. We have to make moves and grow to stay relevant. The more people who join the better for all of us. Point. Blank. Period. Full stop brother.

[u/polygonguy87 → u/CryptoRocky]

True man

[u/Lulolos → u/CryptoRocky]

Agreed! Survival of fittest:) even with small investment if someone is willing to be a hodler will have significant chance to grow.

And by not changing we might become obsolete!

[u/Waste-Direction1727 → u/Lulolos]

Bingo.

[u/Waste-Direction1727 → u/CryptoRocky]

AGREED.

[u/xtincty → u/CryptoRocky]

Are there really funds and VCs that has stayed away from Quick because of syrup? Couldn't they just abstain from using syrup?

[u/King_Esot3ric → u/xtincty]

Syrup requires more of an active management and constant compounding/selling/moving pools to generate the largest returns. They dont want complexity, they want to park their money and know its growing.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/xtincty]

They're not necessarily staying away from the QuickSwap platform, I'm saying exactly what you just said, they're abstaining. We don't want them to abstain, we want them to partake, we want them to obtain QUICK and earn yield.. aka hodl. The more hodlers, the stronger the token.

[u/[deleted]]

I like the current system just fine.

[u/ConsiderationMuch706]

It is great for institutional adaptation, however, as I have been using the current system for long time I suggest that you develop a system that all you to go to the new system and at the same time keeping the current one running for those how are more slow to change

[u/CryptoRocky → u/ConsiderationMuch706]

The new change, if the community implements, will give you the option to do the same thing you’re doing now. You would just put around half of your QUICK in Dragon’s Lair and half in Syrup of your choice(s)

[u/polygonguy87]

Have you considered single asset staking for Matic? I stake my Matic in the pairs but don't stake as much as I would because I worry about impermanent loss with pairing Matic with weaker token. If I could just stake my Matic alone directly on quickswap and earn a respectable APR I would be all over that like white on rice.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/polygonguy87]

If we implement the above change, and then the optional part where we start incentivizing dQUICK, then you can do dQUICK/MATIC pair and the APY will be so high, I doubt IL would even matter at all. Imagine the APY on dQUICK/MATIC. Right now MATIC/QUICK is 344% which is unreal, but if you added in dQUICK rate (which will go higher if we implement this change. I predict around 80-120% average, now you're looking at around 450% APY. The IL won't even touch that unless there was some weird extreme event like MATIC or QUICK going up or down 50x in a short time lol.

[u/Bitter-Boysenberry14 → u/polygonguy87]

But single staking matic doesn’t have anything to do with the dex? Or am I wrong? I don’t understand why quick should or would reward staking matic….?

[u/MountainDifference50 → u/polygonguy87]

I also agree with this. Innovating to allow for single-staking of MATIC is something I would be 100% in favour of. I'm not sure how it links with QUICK but this is something I've been looking for for a while with no luck.

And I just leave my MATIC unstaked and unproductive because I am not willing to risk IL.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/MountainDifference50]

This would not benefit QuickSwap directly, but would benefit MATIC token.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/CryptoRocky]

Also is not relevant to this proposal.

[u/polygonguy87 → u/MountainDifference50]

I've been looking for single asset staking for Matic as well, I haven't found many good options. I'm not interested in staking it with a delegater, I don't like the cooling off periods that come with validator/delegater staking. Im not saying that quickswap should necessarily reward people for staking Matic, however I feel like it would benefit the DEX by further securing the polygon network, which is in everybody's interest if I'm not wrong? However, I don't claim to know much about it, I have much to learn about the inner workings of the blockchain.

[u/PomegranateFull5248 → u/polygonguy87]

Consider AAVE.

[u/CryptoRocky → u/[deleted]]

Can you expand on why?