IIP-138: MVI Revised Fee Split and Streaming Fee Increase

[verto0912]

@Matthew_Graham @Metfanmike could you please elaborate on why MVI incentives are an argument against treating MVI same as every other product?

Incentives for MVI were voted on by the community. We didn’t propose the incentive program. The first LM program was proposed by overanalyser. Back then, we had a supermajority rule where if a proposal received over 80% of the vote on the forum, it didn’t go to snapshot. MVI liquidity mining program got 100% FOR vote.

@Matthew_Graham was advocating for increased incentives for MVI in June.

@Matthew_Graham

From the income statement perspective: Liquidity Mining is not cheap. But without on-chain liquidity product integrations are not viable. If we think long term, we need a lot more on-chain liquidity for integrations with Tier 1 lending protocols like Aave.

The spend on MVI is a lot less relative to DPI and the DPI product is a lot more mature in its lifecycle. Capital efficiency would be to shift LM rewards from DPI to MVI and still taper our expenditure.

In July, there was again a conversation about incentives and the Snapshot vote that passed with circa 85% support. The proposal was from OA as the one overseeing liquidity for IC’s products. Please read the entire thread, but here are some snippets.

@verto0912

So, really, it all comes down to what we are trying to do with the product. If we want to grow it, we should consider increasing incentives. If we are happy with where we are at the moment, because we are waiting for the market to turn for example, then we can reduce incentives which I don’t think will make much of a difference to LP behaviour.

In August, there was another discussion on MVI incentives. Again, please read it. Here are some comments from the thread. IIP-63 passed with 85% support.

@Matthew_Graham

I am FOR LM incentives on MVI. I do however think that we should be tying to grow this product more rather than settling for a $5M pool size. If we are seeing the quantity on LP grow over time, this tells me LM is successful at creating on-chain liquidity.

The key for me is quantity of LP tokens, if that has grown recently then LM is somewhat effective. I don’t think we see this on DPI. I am therefore more encouraged to push harder on MVI to attain growth. I still have my thoughts on how efficient LM is but we only have a hammer atm so this looks like a nail

I honestly believe we should try grow MVI by targeting a larger pool size. Why not $10M now ? We launched with a $5M goal, that feels like ancient history now. Let’s grow this product so we can start pushing for integrations.

@BigSky7

Agree with Matt here. Would love to see us grow MVI liquidity more. Based on DFC’s numbers we have spent just over $260k on MVI LM up to this point alongside a ~$100k Q3 budget. For an index with a $10 million market cap built by community methodologists (not earning methodologist bounty) this seems to be an awesome return on investment.

After the incentives ran out, Matthew Graham proposed another 30-day incentive program to incentivise migration of liquidity to Uni v3. This passed with 97% support but was never executed. Please note that none of the liquidity mining incentives proposals came from myself or DFC, and we were not actively advocating one way or the other. On occasions that we did engage in the debate, we did so to provide information and our perspective on market conditions and LP behaviour.

Given the above, I’m not sure why MVI incentives are being used against us.

@ncitron

This would be the second time that the fee split of MVI changes. I worry that this may set a precedent that products may launch with a low split, and methodologists can ramp it up later through governance. I think we need to seriously think about how the process of changing a products fee split post launch should work.

It’s a fair question but I think it misses the point. When MVI transitioned to fee split, the proposed 70-30 split was in line with every other thematic index at the time, DPI and DATA. Now that we have proposed the transition to the post-gas split, it again is in line with every other thematic index operating on a post-gas arrangement, DATA and GMI. All we did throughout was propose whatever the standard arrangement was for comparable products.

Fundamentally, it just comes down to whether you believe MVI should be treated differently from every other product.

I won’t talk about the P2E index too much. But IC decided to launch a product with close to 70% overlap with MVI and didn’t reach out to us even once to discuss. Would you have launched an internal product with 70% overlap with DPI and not talk to DFP at all?

Does that seem fair or aligned with IC’s code of conduct and principles?