CIP#67 - Remove alUSD gauge


Remove alUSD gauge so the pool stop receiving CRV. As pointed out by community members, alUSD is collaterized by Yearn Vaults which make around 25% of their yield from dumping CRV. We would like to propose to remove the gauge from Curve as this essentially allows leveraged CRV farming via Alchemix as the Alchemix loaned is paid back using interest from Yearn vaults selling CRV to accrue interest without mentioning alUSD can also be deposited into Yearn vault leveraging the amount of CRV received.

This is somewhat of an unusual proposal and it will also be used as as a way to test community sentiment on having CRV receiving gauges on pools which source their yield from CRV. It’s also worth noting that Curve stable pools will likely become fully permisionless in the near future (like it already has for metapools) meaning the process to get listed and obtain a gauge will change although this is will be discussed at a later date.


Whilst we believe Yearn-type farming of CRV is fair game, we don’t think it should be incentivized by more CRV as it creates a negative loop for CRV.
Currently, the yvDAI has around $750m in TVL with approximately 25% selling CRV compounded via another $100m in the alUSD vault selling 100% CRV (and CVX).


alUSD Gauge: 0x9582C4ADACB3BCE56Fea3e590F05c3ca2fb9C477
Vote specs: set_killed(true)




Was any of this unknown before the vote to add the gauge?

This seems related to Alchemix choosing to give rewards for alETH through Saddle rather than through Curve and not to any dumping mechanics behind alUSD.

In addition, by this same logic, shouldn’t gauges for other pools that use yEarn such as the busd pool & others not be rewarded as well?


You nailed it. Spot on…


This will probably get a “no” from me. If you don’t want alchemix’s gauge to get CRV, lock CRV and vote for other gauges.


This is being referred as double dipping because alUSD earns yield from CRV vaults and then receives CRV. This is seen as essentially incentivizing with CRV a derivative product that dumps CRV. Seems counter intuitive hence the proposal which is, by the way, just a proposal and the chance for governance to point out if they think this is stupid.

Yearn has vaults on all Curve (almost?) pools which is a completely separate thing.

I see people agreeing and people disagreeing, the vote will be up shortly and governance can decide, that’s how it works.


Well, if gauge is granted to the pool, and that pool(alUSD) become to receive governance and ecosystem token(CRV) it supposes to have healthy behavior and play part on governance and ecosystem development, not just dump what is given for him.

So alUSD has to change approach or release gauge for projects with better commitment.

P.S. Gauge voting proposals have to become mature and go for deeper review of pools.

1 Like

The whole point of Defi is to allow free markets. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to dump the coin? At worst if the coin is useful it makes it cheaper for other people to grab if they believe in its future.

Let free markets be free or we will lose some of our highest yielding pools to other protocols.


alUSD drives demand for Curve liquidity intrinsically.
Would it be preferred if it didn’t?

alUSD needs to be liquid to drive that demand.
Would it be preferred if it wasn’t?

alUSD “double dips” volume, fees earned, TLV on Curve as well.
Would it be preferred it if didn’t?

Ultimately Curve is seeking to provide the best experience for like pegged assets. Many of these assets earn yield under the hood. The ability for an asset to earn yield under the hood is a feature I love about Curve.

The future holds many assets which will be earning yield, and if we want Curve to be the best place to earn on like pegged assets we have to expect the trend will be for more of these assets to be sourcing their yield through Curve, with a need to trade against the pegged asset.

We have here an opportunity to tell the market either:
a) Curve will serve these assets as first class citizens
b) Curve will not serve these assets as first class citizens, and thus a new market will form to fill that need.

I prefer option a. I want the market to have confidence Curve will be the host of all major like pegged swaps. I don’t think its in our best interest to tell the market a competitor is needed.

Sure the market can exist without the gauge, but I firmly believe the gauges play an extremely useful function and a lack of them will be perceived as less useful

(just to add, yDAI, where alUSD is deposited under the hood, supports multiple simultaneous strategies and 100% of the underlying liquidity is not even “double dipping”)


Agreed that double dipping shouldn’t be permitted. Hopefully Convex votes similarly since unfortunately Yearn has a vested interest in permitting this.

Also just to point out here: the copycat project should be pursued by Curve DAO to protect the rights of $veCRV holders. Those VCs have passthrough liability.

1 Like

Well, the Market is free you are right and free to decide if anything is effective or not.

For now,

  • alUSD pool receives CRVs worth 92.5k USD per day

  • alUSD pool provides veCRV holder with trading fees worth 12.7k USD per day

So what do you think free veCRV holder shall do??


now do the other pools too

edit: compiled some numbers from the UI. I think % reward compares the rate per liquidity fairly compared to their volume to liquidity.

alUSD pool does more work for less reward than most pools.


first,Remove usdk.husd.dusd

These project parties did not buy CRV

0 contribution

All these pools are filled with large veCRV holders. Max deposit there per veCRV to have max boost: <0,04USD per veCRV

For alUSD it is 4USD per veCRV, nobody is just holding veCRV in alUSD pool.

I’m basically surprised who is actually voting for alUSD gauge weight.

And if they don’t hold veCRV, they will exit any day when someone offer them not 0,02%/0,02% but better 0,03%/0,01% fees sharing.

No such thing as double-dipping. Curve incentivises liqudity by paying CRV per amount of liqudity provided. Projects like Alchemix or abracadabra essentially are leverage LPing Curve. They provide more liquidity, so they get more rewards. There is no double-dipping as they get their fair share of rewards based on how much liquidity they provide.


This is a reductionist way to look at an issue. This is why finance people cut everything when they compare two numbers and then wonder why their companies fall apart.

Doing this will slowly allow competitors to see a space that needs to be filled. The benefit to crv holders on certain pools by changing this will be dwarfed by the market share stolen by competitors that DO offer rewards. What will crv holders do then?


What is benefit of this pool has gauge bring to veCRV holders, could you please specify what do you mean?

the forth highest liquidity utilization out of all pools, and is bigger than two of the higher LU pools by 5-8X

1 Like

Do you realize that veCRV holders can enjoy this LU without payback CRVs x7 amount of received LU fees. So why they won’t?

Yes. Do you realize the same could be said about every single pool, 33 pools come out with a worse justification.

Do you feel the gauge provides value? If not why do we have the gauge at all?

I personally do think the gauge provides value, but the main questions are:

  1. Does CurveDAO intend to treat any product which uses curve for intrinsic yield as a second class citizen?

  2. if 1, Does CurveDAO see a market which hosts like peg swaps for assets which use curve under the hood to be an inevitable end of denoting these tokens second class on Curve?

  3. if 2, Does CurveDAO incentivizing competitive markets to fill a void it refuses to serve result in Curve’s best interests being met.


Gauge gives benefits for LPs in the pool.

  1. I wouldn’t call Citizens those pools whos LPs do not hold veCRV. Because they just come, dump CRVs they got for free(for few ‘‘trading’’ fees).

Answering in general,
Those metapools, who dump CRV 100% shall have gauge weight equal to their share of TVL/2 (their 3Pool part). That would be fair treatment and yes it is achievable by meaningful weight voting.