Proposal to add sdTokens tokens pools to the gauge controller

This is a joke right? why did I lock CRV for 4 years if this is what curve is gonna pass. No way. I vote against this. Gotta have some vote lock as the others have mentioned above.

5 Likes

4 month lockup is not long though, so for me as a user that would be fine.

9 Likes

Having read some comments, sounds like a small lock on sdCRV would be something non-controversial to do.

In addition, an idea: what if voting power was given by veSDT (locked!) and just boosted by sdCRV?

9 Likes

As you know, the CRV that vote are locked. With your locked CRV, you take a different (and lower) risk: you don’t take the risk of Stake DAO’s smart contracts. You don’t take the depeg risk of sdCRV v/s CRV. In 4 years, given Curve is fully onchain and very well decentralised, you are nearly 100% sure to receive your CRV back.

There is no free meal: yes, sdCRV allows locking for our users, but it is also a different risk profile. I don’t think it decreases the value of locking CRV, just brings a solution for people not comfortable locking for a long time.

7 Likes

Hey guys,

After discussion with the teams of Angle (@sogipec), Frax (@samkazemian), Convex, (@c2tp) Curve (@michwill) and Stake DAO (@JulienBouteloup), we came up with a compromise agreeable to every party.

Stake DAO will implement a new system in place to further align the long term interest of the holders of sdTokens by adding a time weighted average voting power (TWAVP) over the past 30 days, effectively locking anyone who wants to get the full voting power while keeping the sdToken liquid. Someone who buys a sdToken will have 0 voting power on day 1 and will gradually accrue its voting power up over a month.

We believe that this new system, coupled with the boosting mechanism of veSDT for up to 4 years + the possibility for veSDT holders to veto a malicious attack combined with an emergency DAO composed of key actors of the different projects of the Liquid Lockers are sufficient mechanisms to keep the interests of the stakeholders aligned.

This discussion has definitely rose some interesting points and we are glad to see the community stepping up and speaking out. It has also been the opportunity for all the different DAOs involved to work even more closely than before, and for that we are very proud to show to the world what global governance could look like.

33 Likes

I think this is a good idea.
This mechanism will address concerns that may have been raised regarding governance attacks while keeping sdTokens liquid!
Very happy also to see this synergy between the different governances of DeFi protocols.
Apes strong together!

2 Likes

This agreement is a sign of a unanimous will to move forward in the interest of defi and a great example of communication and constructive advice from the community and the builders.

4 Likes

This is a great compromise and an interesting/unique way to go about it. Great!

5 Likes

Glad we finally came to something that pleases everyone! So nice to see DAOs collaborating to build and share experience and ideas!

4 Likes

Hey everyone,

I’ve been following the discussion since the beginning, and have to say that I’m very happy with this outcome! I think having a new locker like that of Stake DAO and sdTokens is very beneficial for the space, though I have to admit I shared the concerns of some of you about the ability to go in & out sdTokens very quickly.

Seeing everyone coming together and agreeing to this new solution is great, and shows how thorough discussion and debate about governance can be beneficial. On-chain governance is good in many ways, but very difficult to implement efficiently. It’s good to be taking advantage of off-chain customizable alternatives while better on-chain solutions come up.

Thanks to everyone that engaged in the discussion!

6 Likes

Truly appreciate all the feedback. The vote is now live. Please vote!

https://dao.curve.fi/vote/ownership/179

3 Likes

Given that StakeDAO is committed to long term incentives, what is your community’s position if someone tries to create a liquid derivative of veSDT, veCRV, or vlCVX using your “whitelist as a service”? Would you block such attempts unless those tokens also locked governance rights?

2 Likes