Thank you for your message, automated management strategies for Uni v3 is something we are certainly considering. During our review in June we identified a number of liquidity management options but concluded that we would want to see more history of use.
To be honest, I would say that the coops goal is to try and completely stop liquidity mining DPI. We are about to do a short v3 staking contract, but to be honest, it’s more of a token gesture for LP’s. Likewise, we are planning a 30 campaign on polygon (Sushiswap pool) but again I’m expecting this to be a 1 off to kick start Liquidity on Polygon.
Basically, we hope that the DPI whales will be able to provide enough ETH:DPI liquidity that the fee income pays them and we don’t need to provide liquidity incentives for DPI. (ETH2-FLI and BTC2-FLI are already self sustaining)
However, we are looking at a number of options for MVI and future products. Here we are typically looking at achieving similar liquidity to a $5 M Uni v2 pool. We are currently considering a few options:
- Conventional uni v2 Liquidity mining - costs more, but kickstarts some AUM.
- Uni v3 using the staking contract - will be reviewed once we have seen the DPI:ETH v3 contract in action.
- Direct Uni v3 liquidity provision from INDEXcoop treasury.
I would say that automated v3 strategies could allow a v3 approach that is more attractive to smaller LPs as it removed the active management part for them (I assume that INDEXcoop would deploy a standard ERC20 LM contract for the G-UNI tokens).
I hope that this helps you understand my current thinking .
Thanks
OA