I don’t think that there should be much priority placed on growing POL in MuxLP for sake of “balance sheet value” - this project is sub 50m mcap and if this is going to be valuable longer term (think hundreds of millions in FDV at least), then a few extra million in POL is not meaningful.
What is meaningful is volume and revenue, and for this purpose there is value in growing muxLP base - to support more volume.
Already the fee sharing design and tokenomics are quite complex. Simple is always better especially while a project is so brand new. I think big reason why GMX succeed so much is simplicity with everything - compared to SNX for example, which did not grow as much and is much more complex (debt pools etc).
Currently the MuxLP return% is already very high - 31% in ETH plus 16% in vesting MUX.
Under this scheme - users, open interest (demand for borrowing), volumes and revenue have all been going up steadily. MuxLP has also been going up in value, even tho deposits haven’t changed much - admittedly.
I think there’s two potential paths if improving muxLP is priority that needs to be acted
-
return to basic 70<>30 split between muxLP and veMUX. From there, simply proceed - keep building and patient. Then, make MuxLP one of the pillars of the marketing campaign being discussed. Again the rewards are already considerably high. This should help attract more TVL - which is priority to support more volume, not bolster balance sheet.
-
change the veMUX <> MuxLP revenue split from 30 <> 70 to 20 <> 80 or even 15 <> 85. This will make the muxLP rewards so high that it will be extremely difficult for capital not to be attracted. this can be returned back to 70<>30 in the future if governance wants - once sufficient amount of native liquidity has been captured.
In both cases, protocol should stop allocating extra revenue to POL. Instead just let POL grow the same way the rest of muxLP grows from yield