veCRV Emissions


Creating the option and setting up the infrastructure to moving gauge rewards to veCRV from CRV.


Allow users to opt into receiving veCRV instead of CRV on each gauge. Claiming as veCRV would cause checkpointing and locking to match their existing vesting date.


Receipt of veCRV is non-taxable. Users would earn the rewards for holding veCRV without having to realize income on their CRV tokens. Moreover, this would, to some small degree, reduce sell pressure on CRV.


By creating the mechanism to award veCRV, we set ourselves up to, at a later date, decide if we want to move away from pure CRV rewards to a mix of CRV and veCRV for LPs. Our implementation should have an eye on such flexibility accordingly.

Given the checkpoint mechanics, a “claim as veCRV” is likely the simplest solution that wouldn’t break integrations like Convex, Yearn, and StakeDAO. Products like Convex might opt to use the new feature (thus minting cvxCRV).


  • Save burgers huge amounts on their taxes
  • Reduce sell pressure on CRV
  • Incentivize more longer term LPs


  • If most of the market is using wrapped vaults, how much difference does this make?
  • It is engineering on a feature that doesn’t directly generate more revenue for veCRV holders

I don’t know how feasible or possible this is, but I like the idea and would vote for it.

1 Like

It doesn’t need any governance action, such utility contract can be built with today’s protocol. Here is how:

  1. Let’s call this implementation Printer.
  2. A user enables the contract to mint CRV from gauges using Minter. toggle_approve_mint(Printer) and allows it to pull CRV using CRV.approve(Printer, MAX_UINT256).
  3. A user calls Printer.print() with the desired CRV/veCRV ratio.
  4. It calls Minter.mint_for() which sends CRV to user.
  5. It immediately pulls the portion to be locked and calls VotingEscrow.deposit_for() (this doesn’t require special permissions).

Source: I coded something like this last year. It could be a good starting point.


This is highly variable, firstly dependent by country. It might be helpful to cite a source and how you’ve come to this conclusion (and for what country you’re talking about).

I’m not saying I disagree with providing this option to users, especially considering it could be done technically as @banteg described above. I’m mostly concerned just with the absolutist wording of the proposal. It would be far more appropriate to say there may be tax-benefits for those in XYZ country and provide your source for people to do their own research for their particular tax circumstances.

1 Like

agree, this may have a lot of nuance and best not to suggest tax benefits in the proposal without source.

1 Like