[LIP-3] Shortening of Lightning round duration and Reduction of minimum voting threshold

Summary:

  • Reduce round time to 30 days.
  • Reduce minimum vote threshold to 10%.

Abstract:

This proposal aims to make the Lightning rounds shorter and hence make the programme more flexible for supporting new token pairs on ZilSwap.

Motivation:

  1. In order to allow the community to quickly adjust ZilSwap incentive structure, as well as allow upcoming projects to rapidly join ZilSwap as incentivised pools, we propose to reduce the duration of each mining round to 30 days (or more accurately, 4 reward epochs). This means that the next voting round will happen in 3 epochs, with the next pool rewards updated after the 4th epoch concludes.

  2. In order to ensure lesser known tokens also have a good chance to get in as an incentivised pool, we are proposing to lowering the voting threshold for qualifying as token from 15% to 10%. See LIP-0 for more details on voting threshold.

Specification:

16 tokens pairs will be eligible to receive ZWAP liquidity mining rewards at any point of time. Every 3 weeks, the eligible list will be re-evaluated to ensure that there is maximum capital efficiency for the ZilSwap ecosystem and a governance vote will be proposed to decide on the pool rewards. After every 4th epoch , the new incentive scheme will be enacted.

To be voted into each category as stated above, each token in that category has to garner at least 10% of the total votes casted for that category’s proposal vote. Otherwise, the reward allocation will be redistributed as specified above.


Please indicate your inclination below. If there is enough support, we can move to a formal snapshot vote.

[LIP-3] Shortening of Lightning round duration and Reduction of minimum voting threshold
  • For
  • Against

0 voters

And just make port xsgd and zlp mid caps I don’t get what the issue is ? Unless the switcheo team have an higher purpose about this for there own gain? You guys don’t give a f about small caps growth what BS

I appreciate the quick pivots in response to real world data. Please expedite LIP-4.
Switcheo is Best in Class, and an excellent choice to build the DEX. We are in good hands.
I do not want vapid marketing or con-man mouthpieces. I want precisely what Zilliqa has been delivering on, year after year. I think I represent the silent majority who will not descend into token tribalism. We are all Gary, after all, whether you like it, or not. And if that offends you, I would recommend meditation twice a day. It has worked wonders on me.

2 Likes

LIP-4 will be done only when this cycle is ending. No reward changes will be made.

There will also be a need for some structural changes to Lightning programme to ensure that pools in each category do not get overly rewarded. One good way to ensure this is to allocate max APs (Allocation Points) for each qualified pools. More details will come when the proposal is up in 2 weeks time after LIP-3 has passed.

Do note that there are many with agendas of their own who are shouting for more ZWAP rewards to their own bags before the end of this cycle. That is not a healthy discussion that we encourage as it is toxic. Case in point the comment above yours. Also, it is good to highlight that these are the loud minority and not representation of ZWAP holders’ wishes. ZWAP holders are the ones who govern this platform, not other token holders.

1 Like

I think the LIP4 should be put up for a vote with the same voting options it had when you first put it up. Yes, start in next epoch. Yes, but start next reward cycle. No. Putting that up and then having that up for days just to say nah is a little suspect. Those actions caused markets to change. I’m all for the new changes even with the short term issues they may cause. I think they will be beneficial in the long run. ZWAP need to have a good value so the rewards on the DEX can draw more volume. But the vote should be put back up like the plan was the last couple days and let the ZWAP decide.

This will convert Zilswap into a Pump and dump scheme with a new coin getting pumped every month. A slow and steady growth is much stronger long term

I agree with this for sure.

What is your opinion about using TVL liquidity to determine token categories, instead of market cap?

@Snowsledge how about using “Quadratic Funding” model to setup Allocation Points?

Good point. I think mcap is easy to cheat too. TVL is definitely a better metric.

Can you elaborate further? I don’t see a direct link between APs and QF.

Thinking of AP and QF like:
Total Rewards to Distribute = 500 (in low cap category) → this is {total fund}

Like in QF, there is count of investor & his/her allocation. We will have count of wallet & his/her votes.

Example: 1 wallet with 200 ZWAP votes to Pool A is similar to 1 investor voting to fund 200$ to Project A

Please check this image and calculation. (sorry about that 500 ZWAP instead of 250 ZWAP for low cap – but it’s an example)

Look at the ZilSwap Twitter, non experience who do the LP now call it ‘scammer’. :sweat_smile:

this is an interesting idea I think should be considered

1 Like

Interesting, I have two questions.

  1. Why would we want to give someone with lesser ZWAP the same amount of votes as someone with more ZWAP? That is counter intuitive to me.
  2. It is easy to do sybil attacks with this system as a person can own unlimited amount of wallets with 1 ZWAP. How would you counter that without the use of KYC?
1 Like

Going to go with a firm no please. I appreciate the desire for things to go quickly, but all you’re doing is ensuring that a: nonstop garbage gets approved without review and b: the requirement to do so is even lower than ever. I think the quorum requirement and the time period for review should be longer, as always.

So we have the opportunity for more and more coins like BOLT and SHARK and pump and dumps getting approved because the requirement is basically nothing and the time to approval is basically faster than ever. This is basically quantity over quality, and that’s how we create issues.

Absolutely and equivocally no.

If you want to do quantity over quality like this, then the amount of lightning allocation should be 1/100th as much for the first 6 months, to ensure they can’t game zilswap like they inevitably will.

1 Like

Because an epoch is seven days, should the reduced round time be four epochs, or 28 days?
In Specifications, should it state, “After every 3rd epoch,” instead of, “Every 3 weeks,”?
If not, time metric is out of sync, running 30, 28, and 21 day cycles.

Yes, it is more accurate to say 28 days instead.

aler(“dsadsad”)