Making YDVs More Rewarding

Hey all! I’d like to make a first proposal to get the community going on thinking about how to design the network rewards more sustainable. I think it’s really interesting how Rally uses YFI delegated vaults for the token distribution, but it can be improved. Rally should make Yield Delegating Vaults more enticing to get more participation from the crypto community.

Problem: the YFI harvest schedule is such that it’s difficult to know how much rewards are available.

Also, there’s a new YFI Vault 3pool that launched that has the highest APY (

One solution to this is to add this 3pool to Rally YDV as an additional vault option. To make this even more enticing, we could create a 6th liquidity mining pool that requires users to stake the LP tokens from the Rally YDV vault. This will create even more participation in the vault itself which is more sustainable in the long-term.


I agree that the vaults aren’t optimal right now… Due to the complicated technical nature, the primary “persona” the vaults attract generally more crypto based speculators than content creators that care about the long term success of the network.

Personally, it doesn’t make sense that there’s no time-locked options… I think that would reduce the # of whales/individuals looking to get in and out just for quick returns… Overall that behavior is harmful to the network

Adding a time-based locking mechanism where rewards are scaled based with a bonus based on different time locks (anywhere from 1 week to 4 years?)

There will definitely need to be a different way for creators to participate in staking/vaults, that removes the crypto jargon/hurdles. Such as having a feature in their dashboard where they can: Choose to stake X amount of their coin for X time-frame… the system will display the estimated rewards, all they have to do is click lock and confirm.

No having to swap for different pairs or weird wrapped tokens.


1 Like

This is a great idea. The time based rewards provided by the liquidity mining contract would be a nice addition to further incentivize contributions to a YDV; and the fact that these incremental rewards would be time based would go a long way towards smoothing things out while waiting for a harvest.

1 Like

To more specifically respond to your idea:

I think adding optimal new vaults/pools as they become available makes sense, and on the flip side, inefficient vaults/pools should be removed over time.

The 6th pool you’ve proposed is an interesting idea - admittedly I don’t know enough about the idea to comment on it, but it will be exciting to see how it pans out :slight_smile:

I like introducing an additional vault and the idea of an additional LP mining pool for LP tokens from the various Rally YDVs.
If the 2x rate of ydv is not working as intended, any thoughts on an appropriate level for additional time based rewards? Same proportion as the 5Lp pools, or cut into their rate?

I would propose the mining program for this additional pool come from rly that has been set aside for the ydv, and maybe we trial it in some similar fashion to the first 50M tranche set aside for the ydvs. I hope our goal would be to provide rewards that are more commensurate with the risks and opportunity cost of our ydv vs. the liquidity providers pools.

1 Like

I’m definitely FOR this proposal.

The addition of the 6th LM pool would definitely fix the current issues with the low-yield vaults.

Just 2 questions:

  1. I’m guessing that 6th pool would accept any of the Rally YDV LP tokens right?
  2. The original YDV Pools would still be accruing RLY?

Thanks for the proposal!

1 Like

Good question. From a technical standpoint, it would have to be a specific ERC20 (in this case, the 3pool vault LP token. So we would ideally choose the vault with the highest APR. Maybe we can cycle it depending on community vote on Snapshot?

The LM rewards would be split between all 6 pools instead of the 5 that exists right now. The YDV rewards won’t be changed (and will still be on the same schedule).


  1. I would push back on letting only 1 LP token access the 6th pool. I think any YDV LP owner should be able to access that pool with their respective LP tokens, as all of us have been supporting the project through this initial stage. And technically it wouldn’t be so hard imo (i.e. I think the Sushiswap pools worked that way - you could deposit any of the Uniswap LP tokens they allowed into the pool and the SUSHI rewards got distributed equally per pool; contract is fairly standard now) - you would still need only 1 pool, but different staking buttons for each LP token.

  2. Cool. Agree.

Another thought regarding point 1: I think the 6th pool is especially valuable for those of us who have been delegating yield to the low-yield pools, as we have received almost no rewards yet, as opposed to the other pools…

Unfortunately, it does look like YDVs need to change a little bit in order to make sure depositors get both their YDV rewards and the liquidity mining rewards. Looks like an easy enough change to code but it has implications on point number 1 that you raised.

Specifically, adding existing YDV ERC20s to the liquidity mining contract won’t work quite as desired with respect to RLY rewards generated for YDV depositors once they transfer YDV tokens to the liquidity mining contract so we probably shouldn’t do it. But, we could do a v2 YDV contract that resolves this issue and ensures the right person gets both YDV rewards and liquidity mining rewards.

To support this proposal, a v2 YDV for the 3Pool Vault would work well; and we could relaunch existing YDVs on this new v2 to give ourselves the option of adding liquidity mining rewards going forward. But unfortunately, that doesn’t do anything to address your very valid point about early contributors to the existing low-yield pools.

My suggestion - let’s build forward by getting the new v2 YDV written, set up the 3Pool vault, and then revisit the low yields on existing YDVs. And when I say revisit, I mean we could continue that discussion right now so it gets addressed quickly, but do that as a parallel effort instead of rolling it together with the proposal for a new 3Pool YDV with liquidity mining rewards.

1 Like

Sounds good. By then the v2 contracts will already be written so a migration from low-yield pools would be fairly straightforward I assume.

I would vote against a proposal to dilute LP rewards from 5 pools with an additional YDV LM pool. While it may fix the low-yield vault pool problem, it does so at a very specific cost: the expense of some portion of incentives to Liquidity providers (Bal, uniswap pools). Do we feel there is currently adequate liquidity in Bal/Uniswap? What impact would this proposal have on our liquidity levels?
With capital locked up in YDV, it seems like the additional Rly rewards would more likely then not just get dumped on a diminishing liquidity pool. If anything, I’d be curious to hear about ways to incentivize more liquidity providers to help stabilize $Rly price. I’d still also love to hear additional proposals of how we could solve for low yields without compromising incentives for liquidity providers.

Let me know if I’ve understood the incentives properly here. I’m quite new to this market and defer to the expertise of the Rally team and others.