Honey Liquidity Incentives

This is a proposal to create an incentive for people to provide liquidity between Honey and xDai on uniswap.

In order to do so I propose we do the following:

  1. Deploy and Test Ampleforth’s recently released token geyser contracts
  2. Consider modifying or wrapping these contracts, so that we can top-up the geyser simply by transferring honey to the a contract (via conviction voting), if this proves to be too much of a pain we would just rely on an intermediary.
  3. Create an interface for depositing uniswap Honey-xDAI liquidity pool tokens, we can look at ampleforth’s token geyser frontend as an example (its not open source afaict)


I’ve created a honey distribution proposal to support the development effort here. The beneficiary of the proposal is a wallet I created which I will used to reward developers who help on this initiative. This Honey will not be used for funding the Geyser itself, a subsequent proposal will be made to do that once the geyser has been deployed.


Do you have an estimate of how much funding will be required to fund the Geyser? Approving this contract indirectly implies the necessity of that future allocation.


Technically there isn’t really a minimum that we would need to fund the geyser with, but I would guess that we would probably want to fund it with at-least as much as we allocate to getting it set up, and more than likely we would see recurring proposals for as long as we feel like liquidity is a high priority.


Wondering if similar functionality could also be used as voting incentives, to encourage being active in community proposals? Perhaps this introduces other issues, but I’m curious to explore the concept.

1 Like

Would definitely have a pretty different looking implementation, but I think a “voting incentive” pot would fit within this pattern. Maybe we can talk about it a bit more in depth in the more general thread for the pattern Brainstorming Honey "Pots" ?

1 Like

I am creating an additional story for more research on this topic. I am making a new proposal for 100 honey which i mapped to my own address but if it passes i will simply provide guidance on the work and feed it forward to whomever does analysis. My intent is to support work that would help the community make decision about supporting or modifying the existing development proposal.

it’s an experiments in whether a research sprint/spike can help break a bottleneck for a proposal that has support but not enough to pass.

specifically the goal of this is to review the way the proposed smart contracts work, and determine how much liquidity is required to meet the use case if this is deemed the right solution technically. Its an economic validation to complement the technical evaluation proposed. Specifically, i wish to answer the question posed here:


It seems like more people have been forking YFI’s method… halving reward payouts every week, than the geyser…

Basically, I’m going to vote for this proposal for fun, but I hope, given the wide range of methods here, that more ideas besides the geyser can be considered.

The big thing I would like to see is voting with LP tokens… Cause I pooled some Honey… but now i can’t vote with it… that sucks! Maybe we can modify the token controller to also give voting power to LPs?


Was thinking instead of this, we could make it so people could propose an incentivized pool, then top up the rewards using conviction voting. @willjgriff was looking into how to do this with the unipool contract (from syntethix) rather than geyser as its a bit simpler. But I like the idea of using conviction voting to top up the pools.

Im a bit unsure about this, particularly if we have people voting to incentivize different pools, I sort of like that you can’t vote while providing liquidity and getting rewards…


I posted what we are doing in /r/ethtrader governance regarding incentivizing uniswap v2 ETH-DONUT liquidity with a fixed weekly DONUT reward to liqjuidity providers. This is paying currently .13%/day and like 43%yr/yr

I think it is one of the farming staking clones that /u/nootropicat fixed some locking bugs in and deployed it for us using ipfs as a front end to the contract. We are using it now to pay out DONUTs to uniswap v2 liquidity providers

One thing I want to say is that it would be nice if there didn’t have to be a choice between voting and staking. That people could vote their equivalant uni stake while providing liquidity but I understand there are issues doing that.


What if you could give LPs voting power, but only if they add vesting, and longer they vest for, the higher their voting multiplier… :smiley: