Pact DeFi GP11 TDR

thanks for taking on feedback… i’m especially interested to see how those avax + sol pools go. with the right activations I think they can be a strong incentive for retail to try algorand for the first time. :saluting_face:


Great adjustments. Would still like to see a bit more incentivizing of EURs. But the large allocations for layer 1 wrapped assets that are not btc or eth has me suprised and pleased. At least worth a shot to see if it grows xchain liquidity and users.


I think that’s a great change and the strategy change is worth a try imo


Thanks @lobo appreciate the feedback and constructive input :+1:


Why do you ignore our requests to incentivize $vote liqudity?

1 Like

No offense but imo $vote has no utility. I’ve been on Algorand for over 1000 days and I don’t know anyone who uses $Vote for it’s actual intended use-case. Liquidity isn’t a utility, it’s a necessity for market-making. Imo It makes more sense to allocate to tokens that are actually being utilized in their respective platforms as well as others.


$vote has utility … it is governance token for the Vote coin DAO … if you choose not to be part of vote coin dao, its your choice. There are governance questions asked from time to time. The last one was i think last week weather to include the EURs to the incentive pools.

$vote is distributed in fair manner… if people have at least 1000 $vote on their accounts they get 10% APY each hour. if they have it in selected pools they get 20,30 or 50% APY depending on the LP fees. We help algorand DeFi ecosystem and incentivize low LP fee poos so that each person doing swap using dex aggregators gets the better price.

If you did swap using the folks router, vestige or deflex i am sure you have benefit from it.

1 Like

There are still far too many rewards going to Meld related assets (GOLD, SILVER, fGOLD, and fSILVER). And, this lopsided allocation just further drives home to me that we need to put an end to TDR and stop giving them to platforms to dole out in ways that enrich certain whales.

This proposal would set aside 186,500 Algo for pools/farms involving these assets. That represents 15% of the total 1,233,460A allocated to PactFi. (Don’t get me started on the fact that Meld also gets TDR to distribute).

Using TDR for these asset pairs is highly questionable (especially in these high amounts) because of the incredible difficulty in onboarding them and the fact that these are assets that are pegged to an external market price. Handing out big LP incentives for these pairs will benefit certain whales at Meld. But I’m highly doubtful it brings in meaningful TVL from retail via onboarding new liquidity.

Incentives for things like USDC, wrapped coins, etc can be justified because retail has meaningful access to these assets. They can buy them off chain and deliver new liquidity on chain.

But, onboarding GOLD/SILVER is so full of friction as to be nigh impossible to the average person. To do it, you need to deposit physical bullion with a single partner in Australia. Possible? Sure. Realistic? No. The only ones truly minting are certain whales.

So, throwing money at this is does not seem like it is going to meaningfully move the needle in terms of bringing in NEW on chain value from retail. Instead, the only realistic way for retail to get these assets is to swap for them. But that does not bring in new liquidity to the system. It merely pushes around existing liquidity, and in the process asks retail to move the market of what is supposed to be pegged assets.

So, why are we devoting 15% of TDR to pools/farms involving these assets? Is this really driving new value to the ecosystem as a whole? Or is it benefiting only a few?


All TDR funds could probably be better applied to paying Coinbase to onboard USDCa and other ASAs, which would open the floodgates to enable the movement of capital and ~100M KYCed users onto the chain.

A rising tide lifts all boats; let’s not pump water under one boat.


I think that is not up to Pact.

1 Like

But it is up to pact to behave correctly and not create friction in the community.


They are behaving very well. You try to promote that your random coin? so you are bitter? lol

1 Like

I am executive of one of the top 10 tokens on algorand network by vestige ranking and most of our liquidity is currently held on . And has excluded our project from receiving any rewards even though we incentivize low fee pools and provide high value for the algorand defi ecosystem.

I do not understand your quote. I am trying to have arugmental discussion and with statements like this you are not helping.

1 Like

This comes from a lack of transparency. I think all projects that fit in the metrics, and criteria to receive allocation should be supported. There seems to be favoritism to support of selected assets. While leaving other assets out. If they provide clear transparency on how allocation is done, Vote coin more then likely wouldn’t be excluded, and some of the larger allocations would see a decline in %.
Pact needs to make things fair and transparent if they want to receive TDR.
Vote No on GP10.

1 Like

While I agree I think metrics would help… it’s also really hard to come up with a combination of metrics that can’t be manipulated themselves, or don’t result in a stagnant defi space.

What metrics are the right ones? TVL, fees generated, number of LP holders, external inflow opportunity… so many factors at play.

The goBTC/wBTC and goETH/wETH LPs we all wanted to see reduced have TVL that dwarfs most other pairings for example. Based on certain metrics they’d still be getting a larger allocation.

Then you have new opportunities that would fall outside any metrics - lets say wADA becomes a thing, and now we have a relatively poor DeFi UX alt L1 in ADA able to easily bridge to Algorand… I think there should be wiggle room to incentivise something like that, that would fall outside of pre-defined metrics due to being so new

I think where transparent metrics could help most is in ASA allocations (outside of USDC/USDT, and wrapped assets)… say 10% of TDR goes to ‘community’ tokens. Those tokens have metrics that have less external factors/opportunity at play

I’ve been pretty critical and vocal - but I also think on the WHOLE Pact have listened this period.

They heavily reduced same asset pairs like goETH/wETH… they more strongly focussed on USDC… they reduced the total pairs and streamlined.

Voting NO would cutting off your nose to spite your face… especially with current market conditions.

Vote Coin + Finite fee generation relies on the volume of Algo/USDC trades. If we vote NO and see those LPs reduce significantly for a qtr then it’s very hard to build back up again.


I agree, that metrics, can lead to manipulation and gamification, and it will be hard balancing act, and a bit of work in order to be done well. I still think Tinyman has a decent approach to allocation that other DEXs like Pact could follow, or at least start with. I also appreciate the amount of discussion and feedback you give to Pact and other discussion on the forum, I think both of our goals are to see TDR being beneficial. I am glad to see Pact make some of the current changes based of feedback, but I’d really like to see Pact be apart of the discussion and reply to more question and comments on the forum.


The selection of tokens for Measure 9 baffles me. What metrics are being used to determine what does and doesn’t qualify? There are huge gaps in terms of top TVL, and then random additions like PEPS and BARB. I hold and love both, but don’t see how they qualify when many other top projects like AKTA, META, GORA, or ORA didn’t make the list. Reading through the comments here, I’m not the only one to question your methods or thought process.

1 Like

Having your money in Pact Fi is a waste of time. They are not growing and have no plan to grow.

1 Like