This makes sense - keep Ethereum L1 as the main chain where veCRV exists and governance happens, but still be able to influence rewards on other chains (which might generate more fees for veCRV holders than ETH_based pools).
It’s inevitable that Curve expands on other EVM compatible chain, so this feels future-proof.
There might be a question later on where fees should be claimable for token holders (L1 vs L2), or even whether users can submit their votes with their L1 veCRV balance on an L2 to save on high gas fees to vote…
Agree, Curve has to place position of rising cross-chain liquidity and bridging market.
ageree,awesome,Hope to pass the proposal as soon as possible.
Agree. More incentive for L2 users would largely improve Curve’s influence on DiFi.
PS: StakeDao already did it in their polygon network, which helps them attract more than 28 million in few days.
Sounds good. With that model, does an user have to claim their CRV from Ethereum or can they claim from the L2/sidechain ?
Claim would happen on respective L2/sidechain
any chance depositors on Polygon will get CRV rewards retrospectively once the proposal passes?
It’s a great idea I support this
Gauges for other chains is a great solution; but curious how it actually works. It would seem like one would have to migrate a block of CRV to the L2 prior to the week start; or how would one mint from L2 and have the minter on L1 be an accurate reflection?
Since you can’t know what the vote will be till one needs to begin emitting the block of CRV it would seem that it would need to be delayed compared to L1 somehow.
Again…just thinking out-loud; curious how L2 can mint and have accurate reflection on L1.
Additionally; this has the added risk of one day these side-chains becoming defunct, forever orphaning potentially a large amount of CRV that will never again be part of Quorum. Perhaps an argument for a set of abstraction tokens that are “redeemable” for L1 CRV somehow.
Gauge checks results of gauge weight then mints CRV owed for the entire week and then sends it to over the bridge essentially.
I see; hence the mention about strict emissions, I suspect this requires a change to the minter itself to allow pre-minting.
So, we should treat this similarly to a white-listing in terms of risk. If Poly goes belly up, all that CRV sitting there is lost to vote forever.
Would be possible for DAO to change the gauge type and making it so it wouldn’t be capable of minting anymore CRV so a week or two of emissions could be lost for a specific gauge at most.
I’m on board with this. L2themoon
that’s a great proposal, i’m on it
Curvepools everywhere, discriminate against no chain. The multichain market needs multichain and cross-chain protocols.
Now if sidechain operators get to incentivize liquidity with their native token too that would be optimal.
Would be nice to be able to collect protocol fee rewards on L2 or Ftm etc if possible. That would be something special.
I agree with many other comments. I have one question (or rather vision). Would curve use existing bridges or create a bridge?
I suggest to build a curve bridge to any other blockchain. This bridge could be offered as a service to the defi world.
Curve would expand its business model from stable swap to stable swsp and (stable) bridge. would be a huge service snd likely a boost for vecrv
Would be very interesting to see this, Ethereum remains the main liquidity source and layer for DeFi compostability with the support from other EVM compatible solutions to form a giant future of France network.
Expanding to all side chains and L2 are meaningful for adoptions and kick-start the multichain universe with the veCRV holders controlling the decisions.