Currently the Pool APYs include the SOV rewards but there is nothing immediate to warn the depositor that the rewards are to be vested over 11 months with a 1 month cliff and that claiming rewards will cost so much. I had a friend who added a modest amount of liquidity and feels totally scammed so we need to fix this.
Usually rewards that need to be vested will be worth a discounted rate than those that are liquid so that’s why I feel the APR as stated without warnings or disclosure is a bit misleading.
The team has clearly communicated the vesting schedule for LP rewards, and even now when you go to Reward tab to claim your rewards, you can see the message there as well.
I am relaying feedback from new users who left with feeling sour.
These are users coming from other defi that typically do not have vesting schedules on liquidity rewards so to have the messaging only when they claim is after the fact.
You can’t expect all liquidity providers to have attended the community calls or know anything about what the team says.
This is feedback for the community, I am eager to see if the bitocracy works to deal with simple user experience issues like this.
Personally, it was enough for me. I looked into it and realized that it’s a good thing to do vesting with the rewards. Very smart, and will keep price action healthy. To me, if I want to make quick $ with SOV I use the trading tab with margin. If I want to build lasting rewards I use the Finance and Bitocracy tab. I do both, but still prefer the lasting rewards and healthy price action.
True. I am doing all! a portion of my portfolio is staked for 3 years max and I am adding the rewards from it back to my stake, another portion is used for liquidity mining, since I started LM 5 month ago I’m getting rewards every 2 weeks regularly, and portion of my portfolio is free for trading.
This has nothing to do with how lucrative liquidity mining is and whether it is fair or not.
This has everything to do with making sure a new user is aware of how it works before they make a commitment.
The user has to take responsibility but we have to keep in mind what is reasonable for a new user here. These are people the community wants to make sure they have a good experience not from a earnings perspective but at least feel like they haven’t been scammed which is what my friend felt when I told him how it works.
I can imagine a lot of people are in the same boat and this hurts the community.
The point to me was I seen under the claim tab it does say there is a 1 month cliff and 10 months vesting. So I did my own research, which everyone should be doing, and decided it was a good thing.
I do agree that if alot of people are mislead something should be done, especially because SOV is a strong community. I just haven’t experienced this yet.
I’ve raised the issue I wanted. It should be a simple fix to solve a potentially frustrating experience for new users. Seems like low hanging fruit to me.
Just to be clear, it comes down to whether we expect every liquidity pool provider to first go to the rewards tab and read the information under claim prior to providing liquidity? It should be simple enough to make a pop up with a “do not show again” reminder on the page itself when you click deposit.
So this raises the issue of how do small changes like this get implemented? I’m interested in the bitocracy and trying to understand how it works so I’d appreciate anyone explaining or directing me to the appropriate docs/resources. I guess the broader question would be what needs to go into a SIP and what doesn’t?
I’m sorry but your comments make no sense to me. Why would you go to the claim tab before providing any liquidity or having anything to claim? How is that DYOR? I think we need to be very careful and avoid using DYOR as an excuse for poor UX and resisting to make changes.
I’ve personally just noticed about the vesting period thanks to this thread and I’m everything but happy. Whether is good or not not is not the point here.
If we rely on folks becoming experts on RSK and Sovryn to use the platform, this project will be doomed. We rely on adoption to be successful so we better become obsessed with UX instead or tapping ourselves on the back for having done our own research.
This would be a change in one or both of two places: on the component that shows the current liquidity mining rewards, and/or on the blog post linked where it says “learn more” (currently only the blog post explaining the details for the BNB pool SOV liquidity mining rewards mentions the vesting details).
In the case of adding the info directly to the liquidity mining component in the app, that is a frontend change. Does not technically need a SIP, but if there’s a change you really want to be made and the devs are not prioritizing it you could do a Proclamations track SIP to try and get the developers’ attention with a strong signal from the community that this should get done. As a first step I suggest creating an issue in the frontend repo describing the problem and your proposed solution (if you have one). Worse comes to worse, if the devs do not prioritize fixing the problem, and you know how to fix it, you can submit a pull request on GitHub making the change yourself and see if the devs will merge it.
In the case of adding the info to the blog post that is behind the “Learn more” link, that is a change that someone who has access to editing the blog posts needs to make. @TheGimp might know who the right people to ask about this are. Again, does not technically need a SIP, but you could do a Proclamations track SIP to get the blog editors’ attention if they aren’t making a change that you’d like to see.
In terms of what does technically need a SIP, these are proposals that fall into one of three categories: contract source code updates, contract parameter updates, and treasury withdrawals. Edit: One more category to add here, new Origins listings need a SIP too.
Thanks for mentioning this. I have on my to-do list a task to review all of the advertised APY/APR values throughout the app to make sure they are 100% accurate and fully documented so people can confirm for themselves that they are 100% accurate. Currently these values are not documented so I do not know how they are calculated and therefore cannot double-check that they are accurate myself.
As a first time user myself & set up a friend to start using the app I found it quite simple to set up & navigate. Though I now know that I misread the automatic vestings as an option to maximise returns Not as I understand from this thread, “mandatory” . Other first time users may also misunderstand. I am in this for the long run due to tax laws where like property passive income is is a 5 year plan against capital gain where you are constantly chasing a rising asset value. So it may be short term an inconvenience adjusting balances between “staking” & LP’s but again an inconvenience that will overcome. Having said that , others first time users may not share these views so going back to the start of the thread, both Notification & Explanation Language ( “all claimed rewards will held for 10 months from the date the claim is made” with the simple explanation of " after month 1 - 10% of rewards are made available , month 2 - 20% of rewards , etc . Cliffs & Vesting is jargon not simple language) need attention. If I still have the understanding of how “Claimed rewards” are credited back to me, please I would love to be corrected.
Cheers Michael
