PASSED: Initial Proposal for GIVmining

The liquidity mining program for the GIV token is an important part of bootstrapping our economy.

Here is the initial proposal for configuring GIVmining:

In the end Willy, Lauren and I settled on simplicity:

Initial GIVdrop Claimable = 10%
GIVstream = 90% over 5 years

3.9% of the token supply total for 6 mo of LM split up between these pools:
0.65% - 50GIV/ETH - Uni v2 - ETH
0.65% - 80GIV/ETH - Bal v2 - ETH … Confirm Bal v2 works!|||
1.10% - GIV Staking - 100% - (xDai: .75%, ETH .35%)
0.75% 50GIV/HNY - honeyswap - xDai
0.75% 50GIV/WETH - honeyswap - xDai

Reward a flat 150,000 tokens every week, which turns out to be ~3.85% each week

See how this pans out here:


I love the percents for GIVdrop and GIVstream… I feel better with a 4 year stream as opposed to 5…

I’m also a defi degen and would like more of the token supply to go to liquidity mining but I like the distributions currently to each pool.

I also am in favour of having a more dynamic distrubtion week per week, I love the wave or something cyclical to make our rewards distro more engaging.

Looks great to me! Appreciate all the time and energy that went into this.

Re dynamic reward rate: I’d be open to a dynamic rate in future programs once we’ve gathered more data, but until then I’m very reluctant to trying to model a dynamic rate. While we can try and model something that makes sense in a spreadsheet, the only thing we know for sure is that the forecast will not match reality. Furthermore, once the rewards contracts are funded and initialized, there is no way to change them. Rather than try to make educated guesses on what the optimal distribution rate is, I prefer to start with a constant distribution rate and let the market decide what the optimal TVL, GIV price, and APR are. If APR is “too high”, that will incentivize free market participants to provide more liquidity which will bring the APR down. If APR is “too low”, that will incentivize free market participants to withdraw their liquidity and seek yield elsewhere. Free markets are efficient by definition. However, if we instead try to prescribe a hardcoded distribution rate, particularly one that changes suddenly each week not due to free market activity, but due to decree, I think this would be less efficient.

It also complicates communication. A constant flat rate is the most simple to communicate, and until we have better data to inform a dynamic design, I think is the best distribution rate for us to start with.


In our July 12th governance meeting, we decided to do minimum 5 days advice process, then 3 days voting to alllow a total of 8 days for our team around the world to contribute to the governance process. This proposal has now been live on the forum for 9 days so far.

Next steps for this GIVmining proposal:

  • @Griff to review the advice process comments left here in this forum thread and decide to leave the proposal as is or implement some of the feedback.
  • Post proposal to rGIV DAO for voting.

So we discussed in a recent GIV call that we should keep close eyes on DAppNode liquidity mining and use our observations there to advise our allocations to different pools, and the general breakdown of how many tokens are allocated for rewards per week… so these parameters may change if we learn something from DAppNode

However, it’s not blocked for us right now to set in stone the initial claimable amount (10% proposed) and the GIV stream time period (5 years proposed). Would love to here more ideas on this. 4 years or 5 years both seem ok to me…

  • 5 years has the advantage of most likely carrying us through to the next bull market
  • 4 years has the advantage of getting tokens out quicker, appealing to the rate of change in the crypto space

Would love some more feedback from other :unicorn: s

1 Like

I’m also a defi degen and would like more of the token supply to go to liquidity mining but I like the distributions currently to each pool.

This can totally happen either by rGIV or the GIVgarden choosing to add more tokens to the LM program… what we are allocating is the bare minimum.

1 Like

How long should the GIVStream stream?

  • 5 years
  • 4 years

0 voters

As discussed on the Governance call in August 9th, let’s leave this poll up for 3 days and then aim to propose the initial GIVmining parameters to Aragon on August 12th :rocket:


Ok so we are 5 vs 3 on the 5 years vs 4 years… That seems pretty close… How about we split the baby in 1/2 and do 4.625 years (every vote counts!)… This would be 55.5 months :smiley:

I think we can just say the day that the stream ends… and not worry about communicating about it being streamed for 4.625 years. eg if we launch September 15th, 2021, then it would go to May 1st 2026!

Any objections?

If not I would Propose that we do 4.625 years streaming and 10% unlocked initially :smiley:

1 Like

I enjoy the sentiment to find compromise but 4.625 years is a weird number and will probably just be annoying to explain to people. I’m okay personally with it becoming 5 years if that is what the majority has voted for

I agree with Mitch… if majority has voted 5 years, we should go with that to keep things simple.

I think we wouldn’t have to explain the 4.625 years to anyone though. we could literally just say “stream runs until May 1, 2026” and leave it at that.

With the GIVstream it gets complicated right away actually… because even after just 1 day… the length of time the stream changes, so it’s not longer “5 years locked”, but it becomes “4 years and 364 days locked”

Anyway, I don’t have a strong opinion. 4.625 is fine. 5 years is also fine :woman_shrugging: just I don’t think that either number is any more or any less complicated than the other.

I’m in favor of picking a date that it ends… easier to communicate over time, have a countdown clock …

Also, I think we need a launch party and a closing party :partying_face:

May 1st is cool, but May (the) 4th… way cool and sticks.

September 15th is cool, but September 14th… is my birthday :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

1 Like

Ok! so we had a governance call today and discussed the potential of 5 years vs a date… we went with 5 years.

Here is the vote:

Ratify! GIVstream: 90% streamed over 5 years. GIVdrop: 10% given at GIVeconomy launch. Sound like a plan?

I think promising anything to our Community, especially things that deal with smart contracts, tokens, governance and implied financial gain is always a potential liability. Promising something for 5 years opens us up to risks for a very long period of time.

What would it take to implement a review process after 3 years for example, with the option to change the distribution on final 2 years?

“Good enough” for now, with understanding that much will change in the coming years and we reserve the right to modify via the DAO.

Passed Aug 19, 2021: Aragon