But it isn’t fair to do a 50-50 split. The fair thing to do is handle the trade fees only, splitting them 50-50. I can’t believe something so straightforward would be impossible to handle on chain. Maybe the contract wasn’t written to handle this logic, but then that’s a problem with the contract. I’d rather we admit the mistake, relaunch the pool with code to handle the logic, vote in the gauge, and migrate liquidity.
I’m sorry but it’s sloppy to just shrug it off and say “oh well, let’s just lop off half the built in interest this token earns and hope LP’s don’t mind”. Maybe we need to slow down on launching new pools so that proper due diligence can be done on each coin we add. This pool was added as part of a buck shot of like 5 new pool proposals. We’re all excited to grow volumes, but here is an example where rushing the roll outs made us overlook a detail that negatively impacts LPs.
This isn’t just a matter of being unfair. If we have a competitor that launches a USDN pool, all they have to do is give the LPs 100% of the built in interest and they won’t have a hard time poaching all of our liquidity. I know it feels like Curve doesn’t have much competition, but we all know how quickly the situation in DeFi changes. We need to make sure we aren’t giving future competitors an easy opening.