FIP#45 will increase the yield directed by gFLOOR holders on a bi-weekly basis to 100% of all NFTX & Uniswap FLOOR POL fee yield, rather than 50%, giving gFLOOR holders more control over yield direction.
FIP#45 will require the multi-sig to act on each Gauge Sweep within 4 days of each Gauge War epoch (14 days after the Snapshot goes live), as opposed to an arbitrary system.
This proposal is designed to increase transparency, efficiency, and grant further voting utility to gFLOOR token holders.
FIP#45 increases the amount of yield directed to gFLOOR token holders, as well as provides for a set Sweep timing, while still allowing for front-running protection, being that there is a 4 day window.
Increase yield directed on a bi-weekly basis to 100% of NFTX & Uniswap FLOOR POL yield from 50%.
Mandate the multi-sig to sweep within 4 days of each Gauge epoch’s conclusion (14 days after the start of each vote).
This discussion topic will remain open for ~24 hours prior to going live on Snapshot.
strong support, looking forward to implementation
i support the current thing.
Would prefer 50% is always used for buybacks when mc < tv and the other 50% for gauges.
However, I’ll still take this lol. Good proposal folks, appreciate it.
Hello, was just talking to Aeto about this in Discord in Strategy channel. See conversation here: Discord
Can we ensure that post FIP45 we begin actualizing yield for every gauge vote? We can say something like if the yield is worth more than 1e we claim and sell otherwise we just leave it to accumulate for the following gauge.
The worry here is that we are slow draining the treasury eth and are actually double allocating to NFTs at the moment.
Please see the following example:
lets assume we only had punks.
10e of yield in punks, all of that gets put back into the nftx position
we “claim” we got 10e of yield so we
take 5e from the treasury and put it into the gauge, 3 of that goes to floor and 2 goes back into punks
the other 5e “goes to the treasury” but not actually theres no eth going there
so what we really have done is
but we should have done is
I support zon’s point.
We are leveraging our NFT exposure which is not necessarily a good thing before EAT EAT is implemented and we have some way to churn out the bad collections.