Hey Gold … very good point there… Incognito does not need whales in it for indeed if whales come to control the coin well then PRV coin will suffer the manipulation issue that granddaddy coin of all coins…(BTC)…is alleged to have…and moos4444 hit it right on the head…but Joe Bloggs raises a very valid point as to how a potential new investor might perceive the discussion taking place at this time as a reason to not invest or even worse pull their investment. I am not sure what the community as a whole will think is the best fix for now is but indeed the sooner this topic is addressed the better for the community and all of us indeed.
[Finished] Liquidity rewards program v2
As much as I would be a fan of having the liquidity in the network be decentralized and largely owned by individuals, I think that significantly hinders the pace of the project.
Most people, at least in the US, live paycheck to paycheck. It’s hard to scrounge around the kind of money your looking for from these particular individuals. Don’t get me wrong, It’s possible, just slow. Bringing in large investors is definitely important because it brings more confidence to the network. More confidence, equals more investments, not just from more large investors, but from smaller ones too.
I don’t think you should completely cut out large investors from the picture, they help significantly in gaining notoriety, which is an important aspect of the platform. In the future, you want wealthy people using the platform. If there is risk, even if the benefits of privacy are good, they are less likely to use it. I rather snuff out the potential risks preventing future investors now.
All this being said, if you believe in the network, the price of PRV is down, like I said before, it is a good opportunity to double down and buy. A rally after this downturn would be extremely beneficial. If it’s possible that the discussion about the rewards program was what significantly decreased the price, and not the rewards program itself, then I think it’s good we are seeing this now. If conversation like this is that detrimental to the stability of the platform, that’s something we need to fix if we are trying to expand as much as we are. It’s good to know your weaknesses before a bad actor tries to exploit them. (It probably was a mixture though)
Overall, I think we have some very good people and ideas in the community. I’m sure the developers are reading our comments with an open mind. I don’t think the platform will fail, if anything I want to help push it to the finish line. If I had more money to invest I would. (Probably why I don’t have much money 
)
Privacy is important to people, so there is always going to be a “grassroots” movement to try to capture those ideals. More money just inspires more confidence and makes things move faster.
I think things will work out, and I think we all have learned something new from this discussion.
10 Likes
@Revolve, I totally agree, we need large investors. My point is that we shouldn’t rely on them as much as we currently do. Instead, we should all work toward building a stable pool of liquidity. We don’t have to put everything in it to do this, and I think some of our incentive and tiered ideas would go a long way toward achieving this goal.
Cheers!
2 Likes
Ok guys and gals…let’s get it done…nuff said!!!..
1 Like
Had to chime in, perhaps this opinion will also be taken under consideration.
Lack of interest on the other half of PRV pair is what killed my incentive to keep the funds in the liquidity pool, I cashed out and went elsewhere.
The biggest problem is the broken promise of an APR, when I invested I understood that the rates would stay the same at least until the end of this year, this applies both to staking and liquidity.
To me personally this feels like bait and switch. I’m hurt, disappointed and no longer trust the project, if this can go any way the devs decide to, then perhaps they’re the only ones who should use the product.
The tech is ok and the idea is sound, but the lack of understanding of the economic part is sinking it.
My suggestion is to restore the promised APR and the conditions of LPv1, apologize profusely to the users and work on gaining back the trust of the community.
Kudos to gents who managed to put everything so eloquently, earlier in this thread, I decided to add a bit of personal “butt-hurt” and imho a lot of people feel the same way, as clearly evidenced by the amount of liquidity evaporating and the price action that follows.
11 Likes
why can’t we have emission curve written in code at the first place? why does that have to be extended by a year? Why can the reward to LPs be adjusted manually? Isn’t this the most important thing, the ethos of decentralized blockchain: Bitcoin go directly to miners and no one can stop that, because they are written in code.
1 Like
Hey @jindouyunz you can find the curve on the description. Just want to highlight is that this is subsidizing program.
Most of DEXs like Uniswap or Kyber do not use such things, the only reward providers get comes from trading fee.
So will be more correct to compare it with Uniswap than with Bitcoin mining or even PRV staking.
5 Likes
Hi all,
One idea for the LPv2 is to find a model where you incentives investors by how much liquidity they provide and also how many pairs they provide. The incentives needs to be calculated in % and not fixed incentives.
For example:
$1-$1000 n%
$1001-$5000 n%
$5001-$10000 n%…and so on
And then stabilize the same % to a number where the team feel comfortable.
Let’s say anyone who provides liquidity from $50000 and up they get same % . Basically from that number it doesn’t matter if you invest more because you’ll get the same % .
Incentives needs to be on both sides otherwise nobody will want to lock the other half of the pair for 0% .
In this way you’ll incentivize investors that the more they invest the more % they make on they’re investment.
The numbers I throw in there is just as an example to understand the idea.
2 Likes
Yep, this is similar to my previous points about tiered rewards.
But, to keep people from only staking or only providing for liquidity, cause both are needed, the investments/rewards NEED to be tethered.
One way or the other. If a certain amount is invested in liquidity then they get a certain liquidity and staking reward, etc.
3 Likes
Also in addition to my previous comment I strongly believe that in general the LPv2 program should be designed based on the majority of community inputs and concerns and should not be designed based on some random idea and numbers thrown by the team…first of all they should understand that without a community this project is worthless.
4 Likes
I wish to first of all welcome brtmn to the community and also to apologize to brtmn for their hurt feelings…I truly believe that the last thing the Incognito community and especially the Devs would wish is any injury or hurt upon any member of the community and to the community as a whole. In fact I applause and thank the Devs for all the work they put into the project and the community and hope for them to continue to do their excellent work. Indeed though once again I restate the importance to address and fix this issue to the best of our ability so that members do not get injured in anyway or lose confidence in the project and in fact that we regain those that have felt hurt or injured and if they have left that they return. I think that we have heard many good opinions and possible fixes to this issue and feel that perhaps a set of parameters can be drawn up as a possible correction to this issue and should be the presented to the entire community for a one time vote. It should be announced when the vote will be and it should have a time limit. The vote should be an up or down vote on the set of parameters being proposed as a whole and if the proposal is accepted then the community will feel as though it was included in the decision making process this time. As for future changes and how they are implemented well that should be a separate discussion for now the important thing is to resolve this matter decisively in a way that will settle things down for the longer this goes undone the further we will continue to bleed and lose confidence in the project and lose investors and members. We can do this and it is fixable. Once again thank you to all of us… 
4 Likes
What if I change my mind? I have 7 PRV minus the fee holding in the “Invest” part of the wallet and I did not/cannot deposit 7 BTC to complete the pair. Why can I not just change my mind and withdraw the 7 PRV?
2 Likes
I am currently in the process of contributing to liquidity. It isn’t much to start, but I plan to build on it over time, and I will pull the PRV half of the pair from staking. I feel this is the prudent thing to do.
3 Likes
I’m currently earning XYO tokens through the Coin app. My plan is to convert the XYO to Etherium and then pair them with the PRV I’ve got in staking. The rewards I get from the pair will be put back into staking fund.
Rinse and repeat until I’m earning a pretty good amount of PRV each week from my invested pair.
Then I’ll use the PRV I earn to buy the Node Tree when that comes out, and eventually get my current pNode and all 10 Tree sections staked with my own PRV.
7 Likes
Hey @all as this discussion become huuuge, and all conversation is going on around the same things.
Could someone just make a list of the suggestions and prioritize up top 3 the most community supported ideas ?
As I mentioned before, we work on implementation of Pool V2, where this ideas can be implemented. I think it’s the most constructive way of collaboration.
Here is a quick template how to structures it:
- Idea
- description of the implementation
- budget & timeline
- which benefits it brings and how it helps to grow pDEX
Looking forward for it!
11 Likes
I’m going to ignore @andrey (sorry 
) request for a moment and have two suggestions for the community’s suggestions:
- I suggest that any suggestion talking about rewards, do so in terms of the entire pair’s APR, not split.
Example:
“Invest in LP and receive 18% APR on any pair, except PRV-USDC which gets 24%.”
(Not: “Invest in LP and receive 50% APR on the PRV side of the pair.”)
- As a community, are we ready to commit to a LP program? Flexibility is good but at some point, we will need to ride out the lows, not demand changes.
5 Likes
Don’t have too much opinion and I don’t understand enough to say much, but personally, we can ride lows as much as I’d prefer not too, but the difference maker is volume.
We need to push for a larger pool of people joining. Based on the call, it sounds like we just need that security audit to get some more conversation flowing online.
I would prefer to ride lows and focus energy in pushing to get the name out to a wider audience. Unless we can do both at the same time 
3 Likes
Idea 1) Voting
-Description: Add Voting Incentives to users when they provide liquidity.
-Budget: The cost is developing time from Incognito developers.
-Timeline: Hopefully a mock solution within a month?
-Benefits: Users who help the platform and invest the most money into it, will have more say over the direction of the platform. This will give Incognito more confidence in the eyes of investors and make more people want to provide liquidity.
Idea 2) Tiered Rewards System
-Description: As you increase your investment into the liquidity pools, your reward gets increased as well. However the more you provide, the less increase in gain you receive.
-Budget: The cost would be supplying the rewards. The numbers would have to give people a reason to want to invest in liquidity. However since the rewards are not solely based on transactions, and are in fact supplemented, it might be hard finding sustaining numbers. I’m sure someone more math oriented could help out.
-Timeline: Develop a plan within the month and poll the community to see if people will think the change is beneficial.
-Benefits: Large liquidity investors will drain less of the resources then they did with liquidity V1. This type of system also promotes small investors to potentially invest more then they normally would into the liquidity pools.
Idea 3) Change Rewards Structure
-Description: Instead of providing a weekly reward from adding to the liquidity pools, we could instead lower the APY of standalone staking. When users provide liquidity, their standalone staking APY increases. This can be based on the percent ownership of a liquidity pool so low liquidity pairs are incentivized. However, just like tiered rewards, the more money that is put in to the pool, the less of a bonus increase your getting. That way smaller investors are more incentivized to put money in, but there is still a slight benefit for putting even more money in.
-Budget: Since we would be doing a flat decrease in the standard APY of staking, providing the rewards wouldn’t be as expensive. People would only be gaining based on how much PRV they decide to stake, and providing liquidity only changes the rate.
-Timeline: Since this is a complete overhaul on the rewards aspect of the the liquidity pools, it might take much longer to get something like this implemented. Two months seems like a reasonable amount of time, but I’m not quite sure.
-Benefits: If people want to stake PRV, they would be better off at providing liquidity to gain higher rewards. This promotes investing in liquidity as well as regular PRV. This would make investments into the platform actually investments into the stability of the platform. The money that is locked up would have a nice proportion dedicated to the liquidity pools. Users would also be able to manage their risk profile, if they want to provide for lower liquidity pools, they would get a higher rate. When the liquidity pools increase in value, the bonus rate would get decreased. This would also promote people equalizing liquidity around to other pools. If they see high increase in liquidity in one pool, they may want to pull some out and provide for a lower pool to keep their rewards at the same rate.
I’m sure there is more, I just thought I would write these out for easy viewing. Ideas 2&3 kind of go together.
10 Likes
This is an extremely important perspective. Thank you for letting us all know.
3 Likes
Yea even the calculator or live tracker thing was wrong, I was up to like 32 prv or something and got 20…
Honestly, I’m not so bothered by some of these things especially because it’s early and in the name of privacy, but yes, these are things that need to be cleared and buttoned up for the next wave of investors or we will experience a similar wave.
People invest for money first privacy second. I invested for privacy and interest, but my second batch was for financial gain and I got hurt on this drop. I expect a bounce back, but when people go to invest the numbers should be clear and impactful
Also, it’s a really good opportunity to capitalize on the mounting concerns of privacy for crypto owners… see below, crossing my fingers again on that security audit:
4 Likes