RFC - [Proposal to Increase V1 SAUCE/GRELF Farm Weight from 0.3% to 1%]

[UgOs]

Title: Proposal to Increase V1 SAUCE/GRELF Farm Weight from 0.3% to 1%
Author(s): UgOs and the GRELF community
SaucerSwap Voting Interface: n/a
Related Discussions: n/a
Submission Date: [Date]

Main Paragraphs

• Summary:

We propose increasing the farm weight for the V1 SAUCE/GRELF pool from 0.3% to 1%. As the fourth-largest SAUCE pool and a key player in the Hedera ecosystem, this adjustment will better align the farm weight with GRELF’s impact, boosting its growth and community engagement.

• Abstract:

Since its 2022 launch, GRELF has rapidly emerged as a notable HTS token on Hedera. Co-leading the Thrive Hedera incentive and featured on shows like Hashgraph Enthusiast, GRELF’s influence is significant. Guided by Warlock—a dedicated developer, artist, and voice behind Saucerswap tutorials—GRELF’s impact is well-established. Increasing the farm weight to 1% will elevate its visibility and further strengthen its role in the ecosystem.

• Motivation:

GRELF has shown impressive growth and strong community support within Hedera. With the GRELF community holding a substantial amount of SAUCE, increasing the farm weight to 1% will better reflect GRELF’s contributions, incentivizing further investment and acknowledging the community’s commitment.

• Specification & Rationale:

Increased Liquidity and Stability: Raising the farm weight will attract more liquidity providers to the SAUCE/GRELF pool, improving its liquidity and stability. This will reduce volatility and make GRELF a more attractive long-term investment.

Community Engagement: This adjustment will reward GRELF’s dedicated community, recognizing their efforts and offering additional incentives for continued involvement, further energizing the ecosystem.

Ecosystem Growth: GRELF’s organic growth, marked by a loyal community, is evident in its status as the fourth-largest Sauce pool. With a significant portion of emissions reinvested, increasing the farm weight will amplify GRELF’s influence and positively impact the ecosystem’s expansion.

HTS Farm Weight Adjustments to Accommodate the 0.7% Increase for GRELF:

     HBAR/PACK: from 1.2% to 1.05% = -0.15%
     HBAR/JAM: from 0.3% to 0.15% = -0.15%
     HBAR/CLXY: from 0.3% to 0.15% = -0.15%
     HBAR/HST: from 1% to 0.9% = -0.10%
     HBAR/LCX: from 0.9% to 0.85% = -0.05%
     HBAR/HBARX: from 10.10% to 10.05% = -0.05%
     SAUCE/SpaceApe: from 0.05% to 0% = -0.05%
     SAUCE/GRELF: from 0.3% to 1% = +0.70%

• Benefits (Pros):

Enhanced Liquidity: Improved trading conditions, reduced slippage, and encouragement of long-term investment in the GRELF pool.
Stronger Community Engagement: Increased involvement and enthusiasm from the GRELF community, fostering a more vibrant and active user base

• Downside (Cons):

Reduced Farm Weight for Other Pools: The redistribution may decrease incentives for other pools, potentially impacting their liquidity.

• Voting:
  • For: Increase the farm weight of the SAUCE/GRELF pool from 0.3% to 1%.
  • Against: Keep the farm weight of the SAUCE/GRELF pool at 0.3%.

We encourage the community to vote in favor of this adjustment to enhance GRELF’s growth and impact.

[Grelf]

I like da part where it says GRELF

[JohnFKennedy]

Grelf has brought a lot of people to Hedera and is constantly working on this network. It would be great.

[H-Barbara]

This post should be an example of the how to outline V1 farm changes. Yes theres all the main paragraphs and upsides and downsides, but it also gets into the weeds of how it gets to the target goal as that would be the biggest point of contention.

Now we could focus conversations towards the merits and the details of getting to the target.

I will say the emissions weight page on the documentation is outdated, so I would hope any move to bring this to proposal/election waits for any updates and a revisions of the proposed changes to reflect it.

For the sake of conversation, lets use the numbers as its writtern now, even though I want to talk more about the targeted farm changes as opposed to the exact numbers. Also, I havent updated the chart I posted early as I didn’t have time this week, so my talking points is kinda based of that. I’ll try to have an updated chart before Monday.

Now, given all of that, lets talk about the proposed changes.

• HBAR/CLXY
• HBAR/JAM

As these two had higher that the liquidity-weighted APR of LPs with emissions, a substantial cut makes sense here. Whether is should be by 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 4/5, etcs, we could argue about that. But based on that chart I had before, I’m okay with the 1/2 emissions cut to both these farms. (I’m using fractions here because using percents reduction talking about percents gets confusing).

So that’s 0.30% weight reduction.

• Spaceape/Sauce

I’m just kind of curious why this one was mentioned when this and HBAR/BULL are similar in metrics when it comes to emissions weight and APRs. Maybe you could explain. Though honestly it should be their communities defending their emissions, but I will say they are both below the Liquidity-weighted APR. I probably should have a emissions weight to liquidity chart to have a different perspective.

So it’s not that I necessarily disagree with the proposed reduction, it potential room of contention if someone wants to defend.

• the other farms

As for the other farms, those pool’s APRs are at or below the Liquidity-weighted APR. Again, I would like to hear reasoning that’s a little bit more than just skimming here and there.

So at this point, you got me at moving 0.35%, which is more than the current SAUCE/Grelf of 0.30%. More than doubling emissions would be a great achievement for Liquidity providers of Sauce/Grelf. But I do want to hear out the reasoning for things ive noted above.

Again, all of this is based on the emissions weight page that needs to be updated and also the Weighted-liqudity APR graph that should be updated as well.

[Babanugga]

Hello i think grelf is hedera network major memecoin is best token

[UgOs]

Thanks for replying. I focused on price performance, liquidity levels, and community engagement. I get that it’s tough to directly link these to APR changes, so your emphasis on liquidity-weighted APR is spot on. GRELF’s strong performance in price action and community engagement reflects solid management. Plus, having a pool in SAUCE really boosts the DEX by driving up demand for the SAUCE token and strengthening the ecosystem. These are key factors to consider when tweaking reward structures.

For HBAR/CLXY and HBAR/JAM, I agree that a significant cut in farm weight makes sense given their APR and liquidity. A 1/2 reduction seems like a solid starting point. Regarding Spaceape/Sauce vs. HBAR/BULL, the $5k difference in liquidity is enough to justify including Spaceape/Sauce in the proposal.

We’d definitely want to review the updated chart before finalizing the proposal. Also, any ideas on how we could get the farm weight page updated?

[H-Barbara]

@UgOs

Also, any ideas on how we could get the farm weight page updated?

So … @nubeasado
Any way we could make this happen soon?
Pretty please?

Also, I feel like the mods will change the rules to only allow pictures to only discus the merits of the proposal. Otherwise, it’s cat pictures on every post and every comment kek.

[H-Barbara]

Update on graphics, though no updates on the emissions weight page.
First is one we’ve seen before using the APR and Liquidity of LPs.

A lot has changed from last week. While HBAR/CLXY and HBAR/JAM are two farms that were way up there, both has fallen down a bit. Now HBAR/SENTX, HBAR/KARATE, HBAR/DAVINCI and HBAR/BSL are sharing the same APR space are HBAR/JAM and HBAR/CLXY.

And for SAUCE/Spaceape, it separated from HBAR/Bull from the previous chart I had.

This next chart is something different. Using Liquidity and emissions weight, this next chart plots those LPs and compares them to what a expected liquidity pool should have given emissions weight.

The thicker line is the expected liquidity to emissions weight line, with thinner lines underneath to help show LPs underperforming and by how much.

As an example, let’s take the 0.30% pools. Based on the data, LP with 0.30% weight of emissions are expected to have about $132K worth of liquidity.

Liqudity Pool	Liquidity (USD)
SAUCE/GRELF	$161,417
HBAR/STEAM	$139,971
EXPECTED	$132,423
HBAR/HSUITE	$128,136
HBAR/DOVU	$127,605
HBAR/LINK[hts]	$125,776
EXPECTED - 50%	$66,211
HBAR/CLXY	$35,215
HBAR/SENTX	$33,815
HBAR/JAM	$28,284

So how much does it impact the initial proposal or my initial comment?
The pair of charts gives continued justification on the HBAR/CLXY and HBAR/JAM emissions reduction. A stronger justification for the SAUCE/SpaceApe reduction, while making the case the HBAR/Bull (while initially similar looking to SAUCE/SpaceApe) to be left alone for now.

As for the other farms, of the proposed farms, these are above the weighted-liquidity APR (although it could be argued it’s not that much higher than the Weighted-liquidity APR):

• HBAR/PACK
• HBAR/LCX

The farms proposal that are below the weighted-liquidity APR

• HBAR/HST
• HBAR/HBARX

If others were to grant the HBAR/PACK & HBAR/LCX APRs are significantly high enough to justify a reduction, it would be 0.35% + 0.20% = 0.55% emission weight change. No idea if others would be agree on changing the weights of HBAR/PACK and HBAR/LCX when there’s the LPs at the +30% APR space that hasn’t been touched.

As the proposal is now, I see a large agreement on the first 0.35%, maybe some consensus of the next 0.20% and a struggle to get the next 0.15%.

Again, all of this is still waiting on the docs emissions table to be updated.

Now, there was another idea I had which focuses on the Rewards APR, but that will be another comment as this one is far too long.

[H-Barbara]

@H-Barbara

Now, there was another idea I had which focuses on the Rewards APR, but that will be another comment as this one is far too long.

So … this will be very mathy.
This next chart is the APRs of the farms, broken down by Farm rewards APR, Trading Fees APR and any additional APR (mainly applies to pools with HBARx and xSAUCE)

I probably should had reorganized the columns by liquidity or emissions weight, but I set the data based on the table in the docs, which is mostly ordered by emissions weight. Update docs please.

Now my idea was this. Take the liquidity-weighted APR, which is 11.94%. Double it, so 23.88%. Compare it just the Farm Rewards and target reductions accordingly. The rationale being if the LP APR is more than double of the liquidity-weighted APR just solely on Farm Rewards, the emissions could be cut to allocate to other pools as we should strike a balance between incentivizing liquidity towards a pool and chucking helicopter money kek.

Based on this idea, this is the following farms that would had been affected:

Expand to show table

V1 LP	Farm Rewards APR	Current Weight of Emissions	Cut by	Target Weight of Emissions	Weight change
USDC/SAUCE	25.38%	1.28%	6/100	1.20%	0.08%
HBAR/KARATE	26.55%	0.90%	1/10	0.81%	0.09%
HBAR/SENTX	31.45%	0.30%	24/100	0.23%	0.07%
HBAR/CLXY	29.89%	0.30%	1/5	0.24%	0.06%
HBAR/JAM	37.84%	0.30%	37/100	0.19%	0.11%
HBAR/DAVINCI	36.73%	0.50%	35/100	0.33%	0.17%
HBAR/BSL	36.00%	0.50%	34/100	0.33%	0.17%
HBAR/STEAM	26.95%	0.30%	11/100	0.27%	0.03%

which comes out to a 0.79% weight change, which is more that what is currently asked for. So there’s room to wiggle around to tune down some of the cuts. Something like this

Expand to show table

V1 LPs	Farm Weight	Target Weight	Change
USDC/SAUCE	1.28%	1.21%	0.07%
HBAR/KARATE	0.90%	0.82%	0.08%
HBAR/SENTX	0.30%	0.24%	0.06%
HBAR/CLXY	0.30%	0.25%	0.05%
HBAR/JAM	0.30%	0.20%	0.10%
HBAR/DAVINCI	0.50%	0.34%	0.18%
HBAR/BSL	0.50%	0.35%	0.17%
HBAR/STEAM	0.30%	0.28%	0.02%

Mostly likely a proposal like this wouldn’t go thorough as this table is solely looking through the lens of one metric (the farm APR compared to double the liquidity-weighted APR), but proposals could be made of a bunch of parts, all with different reasoning of each one. I just hope with the comments and graphs I made, we could make an informed decision.

Now back to the current proposal. This is how I’m feeling on each one:

Expand here for full list

.

HBAR/PACK

from 1.2% to 1.05% = -0.15%
Slightly underperforms in liquidity by 14% compared to the emissions it receives. LP APR and even the Farm APR is higher than the Liquidity-Weighted APR of the pools, though not at double but just underneath it. A 1/8 cut of emissions is fairly reasonable.

HBAR/JAM

from 0.3% to 0.15% = -0.15%
Severely underperforms in liquidity by over 75% compared to the emissions it receives. LP APR and even the Farm APR is higher than double the Liquidity-Weighted APR of the pools. A 1/2 cut of emissions is reasonable.

HBAR/CLXY

from 0.3% to 0.15% = -0.15%
Similar to HBAR/JAM in terms of low liquidity to emissions received and very high APR. A 1/2 cut of emissions is reasonable.

HBAR/HST

from 1% to 0.9% = -0.10%
Barely underperforms in liquidity by 9%, but APR are below the average APR. I would need some other reason that’s more that shaving emissions.

HBAR/LCX

from 0.9% to 0.85% = -0.05%
Underperforms in liquidity to emissions by 50%, and APRs are slightly above the average APR. A 1/18 cut seems so lenient when up to a 1/4 cut could be argued for.

HBAR/HBARX

from 10.10% to 10.05% = -0.05%
In terms of liquidity to emissions, it’s super overperforming by 100%, with below average APR. It would be hard for me to agree to a cut here.

SAUCE/SpaceApe

from 0.05% to 0% = -0.05%
Underperforming liquidity to emissions by 29%, with the APR just being a few points higher than average. A 3/10 cut would had been easily justifiable here. I have no skin in saving emissions for this farm, but the only reason I could think of for completely eliminating this farm is that among the V1 LPs with farms without V2 equivalents, SAUCE/SpaceApe is the worst performing in Trading Fees APR. Personally, if no one wants to defend against the whole cut, I’d be alright with it.

Woah, I can embed hide details in hide details. Ultimate power.

which gets me to around 0.55% weight of emissions to move around. Which is short of the 0.70% requested. Which leaves me with a few opinions on other pools that weren’t mentioned.

Expand here for full list

.

HBAR/SENTX

Similar issues as HBAR/JAM and HBAR/CLXY, although since there’s no V2 equivalent, if there were to be a cut, it should be a smaller cut. At most 1/3 cut.
from 0.3% to 0.20% = -0.10%

HBAR/BULL

At time of writing, this pool is out performing in liquidity to emissions by 25%, and have below average APRs. No change recommended.

HBAR/BSL

Super liquidity to emissions performer by over 180%.

SAUCE/SAUCEINU

Slightly higher APRs and with slightly lower Liquidity. Nothing very significant to suggest a change.

HBAR/DAVINCI

Higher than double the average APR on Farm rewards alone. But overperforming in liquidity to emissions by 28%. If really really desperate, a 1/20 cut could be made here, although I wouldn’t touch this.

Pools with V2 equivalents

It would had been too easy to suggest trimming emissions here and there for all these pools. Then every token project would end up doing it.

[UgOs]

Thank you for taking the time to draft the detailed breakdown. I was initially aiming for an increase from 0.3% to 1% in farm weight, but I’m open to settling for a lower adjustment if it helps reach a consensus.

The adjustment to the proposal would be to change the farm weight for SAUCE/GRELF from 0.3% to 0.85%, resulting in a +0.55% increase (11/20).

• It’s worth noting that GRELF only receives 787 HBAR per epoch from Saucerswap for V2 Lari rewards.
• The Farm APR (6.44%) is very low compared to the Liquidity-Weighted APR of the pools.

With respect to SAUCE/SpaceApe from 0.05% to 0% = -0.05% (1/1):

• Any pool with under $10k in liquidity shouldn’t have a farm. Many projects manage to surpass this threshold without the support of a farm, so it doesn’t seem justifiable to allocate resources here.

With respect to HBAR/JAM from 0.30% to 0.15% = -0.15% (1/2):

• Liquidity severely underperforms by over 75% compared to the emissions it receives.
• Both LP APR (44.04%) and Farm APR (37.20%) are very high compared to the Liquidity-Weighted APR of the pools.

With respect to HBAR/CLXY from 0.30% to 0.15% = -0.15% (1/2):

• Similar issues as HBAR/JAM, with low liquidity relative to emissions received.
• A very high LP APR at 34.79%.

With respect to HBAR/PACK from 1.2% to 1.10% = -0.10% (1/10):

• High base farm weight (1.2%) in comparison to all other HTS tokens.
• Slightly underperforms in liquidity by 14% compared to the emissions it receives.
• LP APR (21.20%) and Farm APR (20.10%) are above the Liquidity-Weighted APR of the pools.

With respect to HBAR/LCX from 0.90% to 0.80% = -0.10% (1/10):

• Underperforms in liquidity by 50% compared to the emissions it receives.
• LP APR (18.87%) and Farm APR (17.27%) slightly exceed the Liquidity-Weighted APR of the pools.

Does this sound reasonable?

[H-Barbara]

Seems good.
The only thing really we are waiting on is updated docs page. Right now we dont know if the weights emissions are even those weights or something slightly different.

[SpaceApe]

Completely removing SpaceApe from Farm rewards seems like a targeted attack.
This is the best shining example of how a centralized group of people are just trying to control the meme culture on SaucerSwap. To even venture to say that the volume generated by Grelf is natural @nubeasado is a leap. Increasing rewards by mostly from removing SpaceApe is an overt attempt to control the market so that there are no threats to Grelf, which does not sound so decentralized to me as the founder of a meme token. Giving traders choice and options is decentralized especially after rewards to our farm have already been reduced by roughly 75%. Suggesting taking that reward to zero in some of the worst liquidity conditions on saucerswap seems like sharks taking advantage of challenging times on this DEX. Obviously I am not supporting this proposal. Just look at the volume on $SAUCE over the course of the year. I believe our ecosystem can grow, but not by having one token to have the majority of rewards and incentives from up an coming meme tokens on our DEX.

[H-Barbara]

@SpaceApe
You should comment this on the proposal page as well.

Proposal to Increase V1 SAUCE/GRELF Farm Weight

Title: Proposal to Increase V1 SAUCE/GRELF Farm Weight Author(s): UgOs and the GRELF community SaucerSwap Voting Interface: n/a Related Discussions: (RFC - [Proposal to Increase V1 SAUCE/GRELF Farm Weight from 0.3% to 1%]) Submission Date: September 04, 2024 Main Paragraphs Summary: We propose increasing the farm weight for the V1 SAUCE/GRELF. As the fourth-largest SAUCE pool and a key player in the Hedera ecosystem, this adjustment will better align the farm weight with GRELF’s impact, …

And probably cast a no vote soon as the proposal is up on the governance page.

SaucerSwap | Leading Crypto Trading Protocol on Hedera - Fast, Secure Swaps...

And have the SpaceApe community vote no as a show of strenght to not be trampled with.

[SpaceApe]

Well, judging by the Sauce whales voting it is a mute point.

[H-Barbara]

But conceding now would just make your comment mute. Sure, few people vote towards a proposal, but its not really centralizing if others are able to vote given the low barrier to vote and willingly choose not to.

[UgOs]

I understand the frustration, but this isn’t about targeting any token. The fact is, SpaceApe’s liquidity is under $10k, and farms with such low liquidity simply don’t justify continued rewards. This isn’t about favoritism; it’s a decision driven by data. GRELF isn’t being given special treatment either. Its volume and performance have earned the rewards it’s receiving, just like any other token would if it delivered similar results. The DEX needs to reward tokens that bring liquidity and activity. That’s what drives growth, not artificially supporting tokens with weak liquidity.

This proposal is based on performance metrics, not emotions. If we want to grow as a DEX, decisions must be based on the data at hand, and that’s exactly what this is about. As for the claims of fake volume, without hard evidence, they carry little weight in this discussion. The focus should remain on the numbers and what’s best for the platform’s long-term growth.

[SpaceApe]

I’m sure doing 50k-150k volume on the daily really makes logical sense up until the CEX listings for GRELF. Ever since the CEX listings went live, GRELF is doing between 1-20k daily volume. Are you seriously claiming that your volume is real? You and I both know that even if you can see equal amounts traded using the same wallet with some frequency, you can’t technically prove it is wash trades.

[SpaceApe]

The only way to prove it which is impossible is having Driver’s License or KYC complete with each wallet and make that traceable somehow. Come on…

[SpaceApe]

This kind of behavior happens all through the crypto/defi landscape. Do you think that this is some new concept that people have never heard of? Anyone that has been in this space long enough on any chain and has spent time with the hedera community outside of club hbar knows better.

[UgOs]

I see your point, but it’s important to focus on the data we can actually work with. GRELF’s performance, regardless of a CEX listings, remains strong, while SpaceApe’s liquidity is under $10k with low trading volume. This decision isn’t about comparing token volumes randomly; it’s about justifying farm rewards based on real liquidity and activity that benefit the DEX. By ‘activity,’ I mean how often the token is being traded, bought, sold, or interacted with on the DEX, this shows whether people are actively using the token, which is crucial for the platform’s growth.

Sure, wash trading can happen, but without solid proof, it’s just speculation. We need to make decisions based on measurable performance, not assumptions. The bottom line is that the proposal is focused on which tokens are actively contributing to the platform’s growth, and in this case, SpaceApe simply doesn’t meet the mark.