Shifting Priority to Value Lending and FaaS

Feedback
#1

Product Strategy/Management

An ecosystem driven by a governance token where holders and voters have contributed to this disposition of very few incentives and devs still need a bit more time to release the mainstream products to complete the ecosystem. TVL and price of Value reflects sentiment that the platform is not retaining liquidity as there was not a better alternative when emissions stopped. Below will be a strategy and flow of thoughts that we as a community and project should be doing to patch up the previous decisions that have led to where we are today.

This project needs a priority target and here are 2 directions we can choose to retain and gain investors/liquidity in the Value platform which ultimately should be rewarding Gov Vault holders the most as I feel they have not been receiving the bigger slice of the cake. Perfect example of a decision coming up is Seed Pool stablecoins and the 40-50 million left in there when it is coming to an end within the next couple of weeks.

Value Vaults need to be able to absorb this in some way or flat out have around 10 vaults yielding with multiple strategies. We are playing catch up to Harvest in terms of Vault volume. Multiple strategies should be yielding much more than they can boast minus there Farm rewards calculated in. Still we are behind but if we push to get this released then we need to market this as such and have clear information on if the Vaults are compounding or not with other details in some FAQ. We need to consider advertising for strategists and a fee or cut for live profitable strategies submitted.

The preferred route I would advise is to focus on the Dex but more importantly Value Lending as the premier incentive to complete the Value Defi ecosystem. FaaS is about to go live with new partner Sentivate bringing a lot of excitement and buzz about what Value Dex can offer which means more eyes and liquidity providers will be checking out the platform. Right now in its current state is not very appealing with no liquidity, canā€™t create pool pairs, etc. With the opening of new pools from the Sentivate partnership we must keep momentum in making Value Dex appealing but with little incentives and stablecoins leaving the platform due to no alternative, what do we do?

Shifting focus and priority to Value Lending and FaaS partnership building while keeping Vaults in phase 2 uncapped with multiple strategies working their magic. Here is where Iā€™m going to insert a token mint to increase supply but only for 2 reasons: funds for DAO/Community and vested/locked incentives for the LPā€™s. Vested incentives for Value will not be a popular take at all but pending what incentives we have left it takes some creativity and free thinking to get tokenomics going in the right direction. The other incentive for LPā€™s will be little to no interest rate on Value Lending if locking their liquidity on Value during ā€œxā€ date to ā€œyā€ date. The dates will be set and promoted/marketed with partners to attract liquidity back to Value Dex which will allow the devs to fully tackle the complex lending parameters and safeguards. The focus on Value Lending with a spotlight from FaaS can not be understated on how important this is to complete the ecosystem and expedite the ability to provide incentives for LPā€™s. Locking a certain asset or pairing that is approved for a loan with a possible vesting period to receive Value as incentives will be very hard to beat in current market conditions.

Here is a present issue that we can most likely pull off. Seed Pool 40-50 million worth in stablecoins will be out of commission in less than 2 weeks at current vote. FaaS is launching within the next couple of days. Spotlight will be on Value Dex and we immediately shift to Value Lending, get an ETA on when this can be completed as well as deployed with Value Dex. Figure out an exact amount of incentives left to be used for new pools to attract liquidity providers and if not enough maybe we mint more to be locked/vested for 2-3 months on top of offering little to no interest rates for locking your liquidity at Value Dex. Implement Phase 4 Liquid to offer the best yield possible with a single click, top this with Value Lending and vested rewards released after a couple months in an airdrop. You create long term liquidity providers, competitive accessible loans, and you are offering FaaS which ultimately becomes a scalable platform set for growth immediately. Have some fancy box for Value Vaults yielding a high APY compounding no impermanent loss so they donā€™t leave the platform for those seeking Vaults. Back to the incentives for the pools we can create, lock your LP from 10/27-11/3 for no interest rate as well as a Value earned during this timeframe for an airdrop in 2 months. Gives Devs time to finish the product and we time this to get released within a week from the closing date we set for this incentive. Would a stable coin pool of USDC/DAI/vUSD/USDT(soon) be a choice we can create to start attracting the stablecoin market with the incentive program I have put forth? If stablecoins start choosing Value Dex/Value Lending to place their liquidity more streams will flow through the system we are creating in Value which is why I strongly believe we need to get this into action from community support ASAP before we make more critical decisions that could harm the protocol.

Oracle Partnership will have to be a high priority as well as working relations for FaaS partnerships but these steps are the ones I see bringing Value back to the spotlight and some long term $ for Gov Vault holders who have not been getting the most out of the system so far. Something else to note is we need a UI/UX overhaul to keep users in one website (no extra tabs) and some more graphics/art from the talented community we have waiting to help any chance they can get. Need a more crypto noob friendly site that gets people excited to be on the page or want to learn more about the protocol as well as updated information/statements/news/you name it.

2 Likes
#2

I think the time has come for reflection on why weā€™re ending up in these situations. Rewards ending sooner than expected should not have been possible. This is a UX problem where users arenā€™t given enough information to make informed decisions. It boils down to a failure to manage expectations and a lack of information about supply, rewards and schedules. These flaws still exist and will continue to cause problems in the future.

Right now, on the website within pools and on the homepage, nobody knows how much rewards are left, what the rewards per pool are, when theyā€™ll end. Itā€™s bizarre to me why this information isnā€™t published within the pool UI itself. Most of us know rewards are not infinite, therefore APY is already massively misleading because itā€™s 100% not sustainable given that itā€™s primarily made up of VALUE rewards which will end within weeks. Yet none of that is communicated in the UI.

Naturally, users see APYs of zero unexpectedly, find out itā€™s not a bug and many take their liquidity elsewhere as youā€™d expect for higher rewards. For others itā€™s a straw that breaks the camelā€™s back and they dump VALUE while they have it after exiting pools.

If thereā€™s one thing markets donā€™t like itā€™s uncertainty. Weā€™re got lots of it. We create more each week. Over the past couple of months weā€™ve:

  • Voted on vaults fees and now weā€™re voting on them again.
  • Voted to open certain pools then had them closed without a vote.
  • Voted for a minimum staking amount then voted to remove it.
  • Voted for vUSD / vETH distribution amount then had it cancelled and told theyā€™ll be used in a different way and emissions will be going to another vote.

Weā€™ve already voted for a supply of 2.37m VALUE just 6 weeks ago, do we really want to put it to another vote and mint more? Seriously? Having just burned thousands of VALUE with BAL buybacks?

I understand that people can change their minds and things can change quickly but weā€™re just digging a big hole for ourselves here with continued flip-flopping on token fundamentals. The more of these decisions we make, the more mistrust we build. People will start to question (if they havenā€™t already) whether they can trust an investment in VALUE or VALUE products when things seem to change on a whim so quickly - whether itā€™s an overnight executive decision by devs or something put to a vote. Or a vote to cancel a previous vote.

I feel that we need stability and certainty more than anything. If that means sacrificing price short term, so be it. We have to look beyond current price and ask how we can build trust, stability, reputationā€¦ all of the things necessary to secure the projectā€™s long term future. High APY due to increasing emissions will just kick the problem down the road and attract ā€˜investorsā€™ who have no intention of holding VALUE long term (otherwise why would they have dumped it when exiting pool positions?). It will just continue to mask other problems.

If rewards are running low, we shouldnā€™t increase supplyā€¦ we should just reduce rewards to a sustainable level and think in terms of what supply is left, not what the market price of VALUE is. If it means lowering rewards to .001 VALUE per block or lower, so be it I say.

2 Likes
#3

I fully agree with your reply!
Minting more tokens to attract liquidity will only further drive the price of VALUE downwardsā€¦
Big whales will easily come in, scoop up the VALUE tokens as rewards, and sell them at the first sign of market turmoil.

There must be a better strategy than this, I think we need to focus on marketing the product we had.
I also think each pool should have more information on emissions etc and fully agree with J on thisā€¦

#4

I agree with most of what you said because Iā€™m now sitting on the sideline with my VALUE tokens wondering if I should cash my tokens in, take a loss and move on from this platform. As stated in your comment, thereā€™s a whole lot of uncertainty. Most of this stems from the constant changes that seem to happen every other week. Iā€™ve seen not only here but in the Telegram group, peopleā€™s concerns being blown off as if they donā€™t matter. I was even told myself to leave the community just by making an honest comment about whatā€™s happening right now and whatā€™s been happening. Iā€™ve been told multiple times that I donā€™t know what Iā€™m talking about and each time what Iā€™ve been saying has been coming true.

I donā€™t have all of the answers, but I believe too many people put the blinders on with these vaults without taking into consideration of the farmers that had multiple farms and were taken away. I myself had 4 farms and now sitting with none. Many in the community bad mouthed the farmers and I believe we are starting to see the effects of what a few in a toxic community can do.

Bottom line, something needs to be done. Trust needs to be stored, those that bring value to the Ecosystem shouldnā€™t be shunned, and some sort of stability needs to happen. If not, Iā€™m afraid weā€™ll consider to see these numbers go down. Iā€™m afraid some will probably never come back from how some of these things were done. Thatā€™s just my two cents.