Proposal to whitelist Earning.Farm contract


This proposal is to whitelist Earning.Farm in Curve’s “SmartWalletWhitelist” contract, allowing Earning.Farm to participate in Curve governance, to lock CRV, and to provide boosted rewards to its investors (Investor).

Earing.Farm is built on Curve, allowing investors to get yield rewards from Curve. Currently, Earning.Farm is in V1, which enables Investor to deposit USDC/WBTC/ETH and get corresponding rewards compoundly. V2 will enable “CRV Investor” to lock their CRV into VeCRV, so to boost the rewards of USDC/WBTC/ETH pools.

We are here to propose whitelisting Earning.Farm smart contract to enable the boost. After the proposal is approved, we will have V2 smart contract audit by SlowMist and launch on the UI.


Website (V1):

Audits (V1):

Source Code:


  • A part of earned CRV in USDC/WBTC/ETH pool will be automatically locked into VeCRV to enable boost. So every Investor will become VeCRV holder automaticly, which increase the bonding of yield farming and Curve DAO .
  • A part of boosted performance (Initial parameter will be set to 50%) will go to CRV Investor.
  • To CRV Investor, Earning.Farm simplifies the Curve system and provide more incentives to lock CRV.
  • To Investor, Earning.Farm provides easy to use UI and much higher yield than depositing individually into Curve.
  • 3Crv reward will convert to CRV first, before distibuting to CRV Investor.


Earning.Farm focus on helping Investor to manage crypto assets in an easy to use way. It provides a simple Deposit and Earn functionality for Investor that has few experience in yield farming, while the return is much higher than traditional financial system. Meanwhile, Earning.Farm provides a mechanism that CRV Investor can earn higher yield CRV by locking CRV into VeCRV.

What differenciate Earning.Farm from Yearn yveCRV or Convex:

  1. Simple UI for USDC/WBTC/ETH investors;
  2. Different setup for CRV reward sharing between Investor and CRV Investor;
  3. A significant part of earned CRV will be added into the VeCRV Pool automatically, so that VeCRV locked will increase together with growing of Earning.Farm.


The Curve DAO needs to execute the following function on SmartWalletWhitelist to approve the Earning.Farm smart contract V2:


By set such whitelist, Earning.Farm can lock CRV and receive boosted rewards.


It is useful to enhance the ecosystem.

But, what will you do after your smart contract is whitelisted?

The proposal benifits to increse liquidity and amount of lock CRV. :clap:

  1. So this vault is only built on the Tricrypto ETH/BTC/USDT pool right?
  2. Could you clarify a bit more on ’ A part of boosted performance (Initial parameter will be set to 50%) will go to CRV Investor’?


The smart contracts were almost ready while some small parts are under optimization. After it be whitelisted, we will have it audited by Slowmist. And the most important thing is to develop the UI part of the new version.

  1. No. Earning.Farm only use the USDC pools, as well as BTC pools and eth pools for our 3 products, not the tricrypto pool.
  2. Let’s take an example. Let’s say the pools will get 100 CRV rewards without the boosting, and since the CRV investor provides the boost so the pools rewards a 1.5 times boost at 150 CRV. The 150 - 100 = 50 are what we called “boosted performance”, and part of the 50 will be given to the CRV investors to rewards them for locking CRV.

Seems a legit product

Where would you be different from Convex and Yearn? What’s your plan after getting the whitelist?

After it be whitelisted, we will have the smart contracts audited by Slowmist. And the most important thing is to develop the UI part of the new version.

In the proposal, we listed some important parts where we think differentiate Earning.Farm from Yearn and Convex:

  1. Simple UI for investors. They only need to deposit USDC/WBTC/ETH and forget about the complicated LP tokens.
  2. Different setup for CRV reward sharing between Investor and CRV Investor so both of them can enjoy the boost reward from the yield.
  3. A significant part of earned CRV will be added into the VeCRV Pool automatically, so that VeCRV locked will increase together with growing of Earning.Farm. And investors would become a VeCRV holder for the long run.

The APY looks good, how do you realize that and will it be stable?

*I like the simple UI.

Will it be stabel?
To be frank we hope it will, but actually it will not. Since Earning.Farm is building upon Curve pools, the APY will also depend on the selected pools.
Good thing is, Earning.Farm will periodically change the pool(s) it depends, to select a higher yield (but most importantly relatively safer) pools for Earning.Farm investors.

The voting for whitelist Earning.Farm is online:, please support us.

A few questions:

  1. Was there a reason your v2 contracts needed to be whitelisted before an audit could occur?

  2. It seems like there is quite an overlap with (not necessarily bad), but couldn’t you run your deposits through them?

  1. Auditing and implementation needs extra investment. If this proposal of whitelisting failed to pass, the business logic of currently planned product is no longer viable. So if we implement the code before the vote success, the implementation may be a waste itself. As the protocol is in early development phrase, we can’t afford the waste of money and effort.
  2. Convex is doing a great job, what Earning.Farm differentiate from Convex is majorly in two parts:
  • Convex is not user friendly enough to newbie of crypto, too many selections with complicated numbers will prevent new investors from invest big money in. While in Earning.Farm, there’re only three choices with very simple action todo (deposit and withdraw) , in order to make it simpler for investors to make decision. What’s more, Earning.Farm target customers will be in traditional business side instead of individual, so simple is very important.
  • Earning.Farm wants to provide higher yield for principal investors, on the other hand, Convex and Yearn provide higher yield for CRV holders while the increasement of principal investors is limited. If we build upon convex, then the idea to provide more yield for principal investors will be limited. That’s why we want to whitelist Earning.Farm by itself.

I think maybe you don’t understand how Convex works? You could still offer the same improvements of simplification, but just run your vaults through Convex strategies and get more yield. Between the CVX rewards and not needing to set aside any CRV rewards for veCRV, you would definitely be better off doing that.

To me it seems like you are building similar product to yearn, just without the same fee structure. There is a reason they gave up on trying to compete with Convex to get more CRV to lock and boost their own Curve LP. They instead just use Convex as part of their strategy.

I think possibly you are underestimating the amount of veCRV you would need to boost your pools to beat Convex APR.

You are right, that we can build upon Convex for simplification.
On the yield part, based on the fee structure of Convex, there’s now way for us to provide higher yield for principal investors, IF we do not count CVX in.
From the long term point of view, to get yield from one token (CVX) that is based on another token (CRV) would be much more like matryoshka dolls, and we are hard to explain why it can keep stable in long run to our target traditional business customers. That’s why we also do not consider issuing Earning.Farm token at current stage, though if we do, we can make the yield much higher than not.

Hi ringo, What do you call “premium investors”? Are you planning to offer different returns for different classes of investors?

Sorry, should be principal instead.

is there any harm to accepting this even if is a scam?

We open sourced our code, had the code audited (by two security auditing firms), tried to make it as public/transparent as it could, and we believe to apply for a whitelist on Curve is not the way a scam project is willing to do.

Technically it doesn’t really matter. If they are a scam, then whitelisting doesn’t empower them to do much.

I have concerns about the quality of the project personally and would want a bit more of a track record for an unknown protocol to get whitelisted.

Whitelisting projects has been very contentious in the past but I think it’s mostly positive overall (no matter what the protocol actually does).