Increase Minimum Lockup Time 24H (2 epochs) to 60H (5 epochs)

Currently, the minimum timelock is 24 hours or roughly 2 epochs.

We propose to extend the minimum seconds to from 86400 (24 H) to 216000 (60H).

This will be roughly 5 epochs.

Vote: https://dollarprotocol.com/#/governance?proposal=1

This is for seigniorage mining

1 Like

What’s the rationale behind this specific number? Why not 36H, 48H or for that matter 72H? Not sure I see specifics for why one length is necessarily more attractive than another.

60H is a bit arbitrary but we wanted to specify the minimum number or epochs to be 5. This seems like enough time to smoothen LP volatility

Hi Robert accidently deleted that last post. Just to confirm the LP locks don’t open during a negative rebase? Also after the 60hs the user can withdraw the funds anytime? The only issue I see is that with the LP locks for 60h; LPs can’t take advantage of the 1-to-1 bond ratio. With 24h they can at least strategize how to take it out a day in advance of a neg rebase. But with 60h it will be potentially more difficult. Also another issue is they could get caught in a negative rebase. I suppose its not too risky assuming they can pull out the lp anytime after 60h. Curious to hear your thoughts on this?

I suppose that’s part of the risk. 60h is only 2.5 days so that’s not terribly long. Since 1:1 happens for 12 hours - you would have 2 days in advance to pull out LP. There could be improvements in the future to move directly from Lp to mint xbond during negative but that’s outside the scope of this amendment proposal

Ok so to confirm you have 60 hours and then it resets to 60 hours again? Or can you pull out your liquidity anytime after the first 60h?

Also do you think it will work to significantly increase the stickiness of LP. Reason is the 24h liquidity lock was implemented so the user can’t just provide liquidity a few minutes before a rebase. But extending it to 60h I don’t see how it will cause LPs to stay longer necessarily. I could be mistaken I am trying to understand the cost/benefit. Do we have examples of other popular protocols that have implemented at 60h lock and its been successful?

as we approach shorter and shorter positive rebase cycles, 2.5days can be risky to LP as you might get debased. for now I support keeping it at 24 hours until the need becomes absolutely more crystal clear. cheers.

It would probably be better to focus on time weighted incentive, instead of increasing the mandatory lock.

3 Likes

While I agree that moving to a time weighted model makes the most sense, it will require some more work from what I understand here. Increasing the lock times is a simple, temporary measure.

I also somewhat agree that it would be best to focus on the more complex mechanism, but the recent nonstop voting I think is good to keep people interested, discussing things, and clicking on the governance tab.
Id like to consider the differences and possibility of locking rewards but allowing access to the LP versus locking the LP itself. If this isnt too needlessly complicated the idea is that users have full acess to their funds, but still smoothes LP and the price of jumping in last minute still costs the 60 hour commitment