[Signal] Deploy $2 M USDC to the USDaf ecosystem (LP + optional 50/50 to CDP)

[RomanPope]

This proposal recommends a strategic deployment of $2 million USDC from the Ampleforth DAO treasury into the Asymmetry Finance (AF) ecosystem (specifically the USDaf stablecoin protocol) to earn yield and bootstrap liquidity ahead of ampUSD launch.

• Action: Move $2 M of treasury USDC into Asymmetry’s USDaf protocol to earn yield now and prepare liquidity for ampUSD.

• Default path (no babysitting): Deposit the full $2 M in the Curve USDaf / USDC / USDT “AF Power” pool.

  1. Zero lock-ups, zero exit fees, on-chain 24/7 liquidity.
  2. Current incentives + trading fees ≈ 8-9 % APY (Justin has committed to keep ≥ 8%, but I will let Asym fam keep me honest here).
  3. Pure stables, no CDP to manage.

• Optional upgrade: After three months, shift up to 50 % of the position into a managed USDaf strategy (sUSDaf Yearn vault or delegated CDP).

  1. Delegated keepers cost ≈ 0.3 % p.a.; vault has no exit fee.

Targets 10%+ blended APY while still hands-off with possibility to put into sUSDaf and then further into yBOLD-sUSDaf Curve LP.

• Safety: All assets remain in dollar-pegged stables; withdrawal possible at any block (slippage minimal but we will stage deposits to avoid pool imbalance).

• Governance cadence:

  1. Signal vote (this post) – choose “LP-only” or “LP + 50 % managed”, runs 2-3 days with fast follow up with parameters.
  2. If approved, on-chain execution via Treasury multisig the following week with a defined parameters.

90-day review: report realized APY & risk metrics; community may scale up or rotate into ampUSD-specific pools.

Why act now?
Increasing USDaf supply and liquidity raises the starting ceiling for ampUSD TVL. Every day the idle USDC leaves ≥ 8 % yield on the table. Quick approval lets the DAO earn, while showing the market ampUSD can be backed and integrated into the ecosystem from day 0.

Key answers to common concerns

Concern	Mitigation
Exit / lock-up fees?	None. Curve LP removable instantly; Yearn exit fee removed since v2.
Human babysitting?	LP-only track is fully passive. The optional managed half would be run by a delegated keeper with an automated LTV floor; no DAO intervention required.
Slippage?	Funds will be legged in/out over several txs; projected impact < 0.2 %.
Interest pre-payment for CDP?	Only if the DAO opts into the managed CDP half; seven days’ interest (~0.17 %) is prepaid on opening and refunded pro-rata on close.

Full rationale, risk matrix, and aggressive leverage alternatives are in the long-form doc:

[Signaling Proposal] Deploy $2M USDC into Asymmetry’s USDaf Protocol (Preparing...

[Richard_Meng]

Asymmetry Finance code from Liquidity V2 has been through several company audits and public audits, its very secure, its features are very powerful, we may consider add loop function once it go live in near future.

I support this proposal, its a no-brainer and a win-win for both projects.

[RomanPope]

There isn’t an easy way to loop just yet, but as the protocol establishes itself, I think this is something we definitely should explore in the future.

Personally, I would probably split the funds between 1M in LP because it is just easy and hands off yields. Additionally, I would get some sfraxUSD with the USDC, and I would mint USDaf that further can be deposited into sUSDaf for hands off yields. I would even go as far as moderately-aggressive LTV of 80-85% as there was some recent alpha that got leaked:

Bjirke — 18:28
The redemption price from the oracle is independent of DEX volatility.,
I can confirm to you that frxUSD is basically risk-free, and is not depeggable. Once the GENIUS act is passed into law, Frax will apply to make frxUSD legal tender. That means frxUSD and a USD bill will be the same in the eyes of the law. Not only that, sfrxUSD is already prepared and ready for the legislation.

so essentially, when I get my 100% provable oracle confirmation.....wondering if theres any other way sfrxusd could fall in price (redemption price I mean)...but basically that would be a free ride to degen island 

[kbambridge]

I also support this proposal, it’s a win win for both Asymmetry and Ampleforth. Their immutable deployment and robust security audits done on the codebase makes the risk much lower than your typical DeFi deployment, seconding what @Richard_Meng said.

I’m also in favor of using sfraxUSD collateral, that way it distributes the ForthDAO colalteral across four ecosystems that are net positive for Ampleforth as well as being the highest yielding collateral at the moment. We do not need to necessarily yield loop at first, but can borrow and deposit into the stability pool as mentioned in the proposal.

[Brandon]

Thanks for the proposal Roman.

Stepping back a second, the long term goals of the DAO (as I see them) is to:

1. Own enough liquidity to support any use case of ampleforth assets (with no need for renting)
2. Grow the ecosystem
3. Grow the DAO treasury

Obviously growing the treasury helps the other two causes. Sometimes liquidity is needed for partnerships, etc. Whenever the DAO holds undeployed assets, there will always be a tension between increasing DAO-owned liquidity, and deploying that capital for yield.

Right now, deploying liquidity into WAMPL-WETH on the Charm managed uniswap vaults is providing ~37.22% 30d Avg APY, and deploying into FORTH-WETH is providing ~14.52% 30d Avg APY. Historically, these are not outsized returns for these pools and this is real yield from the market.

Given that the DAO already holds AMPL and FORTH, purely deploying USDC into this way simultaneously grows liquidity and earns a high yield. So I’d say this is the default actions for these assets.

However, I’m still open to deploying into the Asymmetry ecosystem in the short term (~90 days and reassess), as it has the potential to help the success of ampUSD when that time comes. When ampUSD is rolled out, it is likely we would want to rotate the capital in ways to support it. This may mean AMPL and/or SPOT liquidity, minting ampUSD directly, or something else.

The LP strategy and perhaps the yearn vault make sense to me, but I don’t see the need to take outsized risk with these assets purely to chase return, given our other options. I’d want an ecosystem argument to justify the risky strategy.

[RomanPope]

Thanks for the excellent questions, let me try to lay out my thinking as transparently as possible. I should also note that this is my understanding, and I am still trying to figure out the best strategy to position the DAO as a winner and think about the future of ampUSD and AMPL without sacrificing DAO’s priorities.

When I am thinking about the DAO assets, I am very much in agreement with the north star goals as you describes:

1. Permanent, DAO-owned liquidity for every Ampleforth asset
2. Ecosystem growth (AMPL ↔ SPOT ↔ ampUSD flywheel)
3. Treasury growth to fund (1) & (2)

Any deployment that doesn’t tick at least two of those boxes isn’t worth DAO’s time.

The safest first move is by far the LP USDC in the USDaf/USDC/USDT pool. All assets are stables on Curve, so essentially, it would translate to quasi zero impermanent loss and very little contract risk (I would consider this a requisite to Goal 1 most of the time as DAO shouldn’t lose or give away assets very willingly).

Gauge already live, so we get those CRV + CVX emissions. This will grow treasury with ~8-9 % real yield (Goal 3).
Gem rewards on top which later converts to ASF airdrop. ASF will allow the DAO to have dibs on the 25% fee share of both USDaf and ampUSD (yes, AMPL is the collateral, but the revenue is via Liquity v2 model) (Goals 2 & 3).

Net-net: we earn competitive, largely risk-free yield and start stacking Gems/ASF that we’ll need later to perk-up ampUSD liquidity or DAO initiative without paying bribes out-of-pocket.

Filter	How the LP clears it
Treasury growth	8-9 % APR from CRV + CVX emissions on a triple-stable pool with quasi-zero IL, minimal contract risk.
Ecosystem growth	Adds depth to USDaf’s main pool, reducing slippage and strengthening its peg which is crucial pre-work for ampUSD. The more popular USDaf is, the bigger will be the trust in ampUSD by transitivity.
Future liquidity control	Curve LP tokens sit in the treasury; DAO can exit or redirect at any time.

BIG Bonus: the pool pays Gem points which convert into ASF. ASF can control Liquity-v2 gauges and will 25% of all protocol revenue (USDaf and ampUSD). Stacking Gems now is a cost-free way to buy future influence and yield.

As a DAO member, I would be very happy with that, but it might be a bit shortsighted. Why not stop there?

Day-1, two-token ammo.

• We know the DAO can mint ampUSD from its AMPL, but today it will own zero USDaf.
• Minting 800 k USDaf now means we can spin up ampUSD-USDaf liquidity without touching the base pool’s USDC, so no slippage shock, no waiting for others to mint USDaf on launch week. Why USDaf?

Cheaper liquidity bootstrap.

• An ampUSD-USDaf meta-pool inherits USDaf/3pool depth. That requires far less CRV gauge weight (and bribe spend) to clear 10%+ APR than a fresh ampUSD-USDC pair.

Stronger, censorship-resistant peg grid.

• If USDC ever has a Tether-style freeze, ampUSD still has an on-chain route (ampUSD ↔ USDaf ↔ FRAX/DAI/USDT) to hold $1.
• That hedge is only real if USDaf depth exists before the crisis. Minting provides exactly that.

Positive carry, limited risk.

• Collateral is yield-bearing sfrxUSD (≈ 8 % 30-day APY). LP pays 8-9 %. Borrow cost is fixed and can be managed by a third-party to be optimal, but borrow cost is ≈ 2%. Still a net positive. This can further be put into the stability pool bump the yields.
• Liquidation requires a 20% stable-coin collapse unprecedented despite all the calamities crypto saw so far. Worst-case haircut ≈ 9% on an $800 k position (< $72 k).

So in summary
If DAO mints a capped tranche of USDaf now, it can seed an ampUSD-USDaf meta-pool later that:

• Boots with low vote weight (inherits base-pool depth)
• Offers a non-custodial arbitrage route ampUSD ↔ USDaf ↔ 2pool (makes the system less jittery and more resilient)
• Keeps gauge emissions inside crypto-native assets within two friendly projects that cannot sensor each other.

Flow at ampUSD launch

1. Keep the $1 M USDC in the existing pool (still earning).
2. Withdraw the 800 k USDaf half or all liquidity from stability pools has low impact (impacts yield only).
3. Mint matching ampUSD from AMPL collateral.
4. Seed the ampUSD-USDaf meta-pool with DAO-owned tokens only.

This will result censorship-proof liquidity owned by the DAO all while maintaining high capital efficiency as minting USDaf turns idle USDC into liquidity DAO literally owns on both sides. Yes, in the meantime the more USDaf supply + deeper pool = smoother ramp for ampUSD as it will be establishing itself through the sister stablecoin. The bigger the demand for ampUSD, the bigger the demand AMPL, the bigger DAO’s treasury becomes, plus we all know how the flywheel with AMPL backing ampUSD works, I think it would be phenomenal!

90 days roll-out also makes sense to me, if after 90 days the risk/reward is not what we have imagines, the DAO can put the fully into LP options or simply pivot to Charm vaults or exit completely, but giving up the chance to lock-in early ASF via Gems airdrop, two-sided POL and a censorship-resistant peg path feels like leaving strategic leverage on the table for negligible incremental risk.

[RomanPope]

I will also add that I view this opportunity as seeding success ground to bootstrap for ampUSD. I think, if ampUSD is moderately successful, it can x10 the MCAP of AMPL. This would allow the DAO to position itself better for the upcoming launch of LVAs.

[0xvertigo]

Hey guys - Chiming in from both an Asymmetry perspective, as well as being a FORTH holder personally.

We’re all in favor of this proposal as it not only strengthens the bonds between Asym & Ampleforth but it strategically makes sense for the DAO itself to both earn yield on the idle USDC as well as prepare for ampUSD.

Building liquidity in a base asset (USDC or USDT) is quite costly and intensive for a new asset of any kind. Asymmetry is embarking on the path we’ve laid out to do exactly that and flywheel as much liquidity as possible against those base assets via USDaf. At the outset of ampUSD, it makes sense to pair it with USDaf primarily and massively co-incentivize that pool, given that USDaf is the conduit to the base assets and incentivizing that pool hugely increases the amount of liquidity entering the combined Asym + Ampleforth ecosystems, a win-win.

Roman has presented a well thought out proposal in our opinion and I agree with Brandon. Set a 90 day re-evaluation period and ensure that the liquidity at all times is optimally allocated to benefit the DAO, whether that be in expanding base pair liquidity, earning yield, growing ampUSD, or all of the above all at once.

As I noted before, Asymmetry is committed to expanding USDaf/USDC/USDT liquidity in the “AF Power Pool” on Curve, a metapool that is extraordinarily capitally efficient. This is the first epoch that Asymmetry is able to allocate resources to expanding that liquidity via the bribing mechanisms that we’re very well versed in. Liquidity will grow from here and continue to do so.

I’d suggest two possible paths, echoing Roman.

1 - The DAO allocates the USDC to the Curve LP and farms the rewards + trading fees. The addition of this USDC will help to expand USDaf and is as close to “risk-free” as the DAO can get, being that Curve contracts are incredibly battle-tested. As Roman noted, this option would also position the DAO optimally to make the jump to providing USDaf/ampUSD liquidity right away. As stated before, yield in the LP is ~9% atm, but we expect this to jump in the next epoch + continue to expand in epochs following. Based on simulations I would not be surprised to see 15%+ maintained at scale.

2 - If the DAO wishes to participate further in the ecosystem, procure one of the yield-bearing variants that USDaf accepts as collateral and delegate the management to a committee, perhaps some of the Amplifiers. A slightly aggressive LTV + low IR + farming the LP would result in additional yield, however with depeg risk that is virtually non existent with option 1. Perhaps pursuing this option with a smaller amount of capital could be attractive, in particular to show users how the Asym/Liquity v2 system operates when optimized in preparation for the ampUSD launch.

There is a lot of optionality in this ecosystem and, as a friend once told me, “a lot of ways to bake a cake.”

As both a FORTH and ASF holder, I would recommend considering the following for both simplicity and efficiency, while maintaining a long term view. Step 3 is perhaps optional and should be delegated to a small group to manage IR + LTV. I believe this suggestion aligns with Roman’s as well.

1 - Allocate 75% of the USDC to the USDaf/USDC/USDT LP
2 - Upon the release of ampUSD, withdraw 50% single sided USDaf from the LP and deposit into the USDaf/ampUSD LP to build initial liquidity. From there, building ampUSD liquidity will be much simpler
3 - Allocate 25% of the USDC to sfrxUSD/other and borrow USDaf with modest parameters, then deposit into the LP

[Togenkyo]

I like the proposal to make use of the USDC sitting idle in the treasury. Thanks @RomanPope for the second post detailing the upsides of putting the USDC in Asymmetry. It made the benefits more clear to me.

Better use for SPOT

I’m a bit hesitant to use all of the USDC for the Asymmetry pool for 8-10% yield and later maybe 15%. I beleive it would be better to use it on something AMPL-native like SPOT-USDC liquidity which has similar APY, if not higher, and would driectly benefit the AMPL ecosystem by enabling bigger SPOT mint- and redeem arbitrage to happen, boosting the fees generated for stAMPL vault.

Support stAMPL vault

In the past, the settings for stAMPL vault were broken, because holders were affected by negative rebases stronger than by positive rebases, due to the DR falling too quickly. With the new, more aggressive debasement settings of up to 50% per year, this dynamic will be alleviated to some extent, and having more fees generated through bigger mints and redeems would help stAMPL even further.

The most amount of mint-/redeem arbitrage can happen if SPOT’s liquidity equals AMPL’s liquidity.

In my opinion, the stAMPL vault is the most important part to focus on right now. It plays a central role in the whole AMPL and SPOT ecosystem. If it’s fixed and it works, there is really nothing stopping AMPL & SPOT growth anymore.

In the Short-Term:

In the short-term however, minting SPOT to pair with all of the USDC would consume a too big portion of the AMPL in the treasury, so it might be better to wait for AMPL supply expansion before minting the SPOT part.

For these reasons, I would support using the USDC for the Asymmetry ecosystem only for a limited time with the intention to eventually switch it for SPOT liquidity when AMPL’s supply has grown enough to comfortably mint SPOT.

Using the USDC to farm yield and the ASF airdrop has benefits in the short-term, giving us a say in the Asymmetry DAO.
But for bootstrapping ampUSD-USDaf liquidity, I believe its better to directly purchase the USDaf than minting it, and using the rest for SPOT liquidity in the long run.

So in short:

I support using the USDC for Asymmetry only for a limited time until AMPL supply has expanded enough (>5x) to mint SPOT.

Using the USDC to provide liquidity for SPOT would be better in the long run because:

1. It provides similar, if not higher APY on the capital
2. A deeper liquidity in SPOT-USDC will lead to more fees for the stAMPL vault and support long-term holders

When ampUSD launches, it would be better to buy USDaf directly than minting and having USDC collateral locked. Use the rest then to support SPOT liquidity.

[RomanPope]

In short, these are the signals I am getting so far:

1 · Sentiment snapshot

Participant	Core take-away
Richard_Meng	Strong yes. Code audited, loop optional later.
kbambridge	Yes. Likes sfrxUSD collateral, start un-looped.
Brandon	Yes to LP; cautious on “outsized risk.” Wants clear ecosystem benefit before borrowing.
0xvertigo (Asymmetry)	Yes. Offers 75 % LP + 25 % modest borrow as middle path.
Togenkyo	Support short-term Asymmetry farm; long-term wants SPOT-USDC liquidity once AMPL supply grows.

Pattern:

• Full LP (risk-off) has universal support.
• A split strategy (LP + some USDaf mint) is attractive to most, but size and tenor need community blessing.
• Aggressive loops / high LTV got no explicit backing; likely a hard sell.

And these are the options I am extrapolating from what I have seen so far (based on what I have identified as “North Star” in the previous poste):

2 · Three practical options (coffee code-names)

Code-name	What we do (for 90 days)	Hits which goals?	Quick metrics
“Vanilla Latte” (full LP)	• Deposit $2 M USDC into USDaf/USDC/USDT Curve pool. • Harvest CRV + CVX + Gem.	① Liquidity ③ Treasury	APR ≈ 8-9 %. Zero borrow risk.
“Half-and-Half” (safe split)	• $1 M LP as above. • $1 M → sfrxUSD collateral → 800 k USDaf mint (80 % LTV). • Pair minted USDaf with $800 k USDC in same pool.	① DAO-owned two-sided liquidity ② Ecosystem bootstrap ③ Treasury	Net APR ≈ 9-10 %. Liquidation needs 20 % stable depeg; haircut cap < $72 k.
“Mocha Macchiato” (measured leverage)	• 75 % USDC to LP. • 25 % → sfrxUSD → mint USDaf → deposit USDaf into Stability Pool or sUSDaf vault (not LP).	② Ecosystem depth + borrower side testing ③ Treasury	Blended APR ≈ 10-12 %. Small depeg/liquidation risk on 25 % of capital.

[RomanPope]

I am thinking it is safe to start a Signal vote with options that are between Vanilla Late and Half-and-Half to get a better signal. I also heard 90 days, so I will just go with that pilot timeframe as default one.

[Pascal]

Sorry if I missed this - but with ampUSD looming around the corner (at least I hope it is), why not just use that 2 million in USDC to fund an ampUSD pool?

I love Asymmetry and they probably have been the best Ampl partner ever. They threw Ampl a life jacket when they desperately needed utility.

But Ampl is kind of in dire straits at the moment. Every move counts. Im not sure I see the benefit with casually dropping a whooping 2 mil in USDC into another ecosystems coin.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the benefit but Ampl was a few negative rebases away from going sub 10 million a week ago and we go from that to close to 10% of its current mcap to support something else for yield when AMPL already has POL earning yield?

Maybe I’d feel for more comfortable if Ampl was like a top 30 billions of mcap project but imo this project is FIGHTING for its LIFE right now and I just dont see some additional yield moving the needle much.

[Pascal]

Additionally, the 2 mil in USDC can be used to give Spot more liquidity or at least put that towards resurrecting bootstrap or some sort of geyser to drive up stAmpl demand. Spot doesn’t even seem like it will even be ready whenever ampUSD launches, and that was the MAIN coin that was supposed to back ampUSD in the first place.

I am really confused as to where the priorities lie? SPOT isn’t going to make the cut whenever ampUSD launches, but lets fund another ecosystem for some yield? SPOT should be PRIORITY NUMBER 1. IMO. I am sorry, I am just real confused guys, and again I’m sorry If I misunderstood the intent of this request, but it just seems like the priorites are just all over the place.

We need to be focused on the priorities of the AMPL ecosystem FIRST and foremost, cause imo this project is very close to being on LIFE SUPPORT. I try my best to stay positive but I’m not going to lie, the last 4 months of my life have been a living hell holding Ampl, given all the delays (and I know this is out of everyones control, but my experience none the less). This proposal just seems kind of spur of the moment and inconsiderate to the priorities of the Ampl ecosystem to me, sorry.

If your kid is on fire you throw water on the kid and take him the hospital, not go run some random errand because it pops up in your head at the moment and forget about the kid.

[RomanPope]

I will try to phrase my personal arguments again in case perhaps I didn’t express myself well in some of the previous posts. Here is the way I see it.

1 Why not just wait and seed an ampUSD/USDC pool?

• Two-token problem.
  Yes, the DAO can mint a lot of ampUSD from its AMPL, but a pool needs both sides. If the counter-asset is 100 % USDC:

1. Censorship risk: ampUSD’s primary peg route hinges on one centralized coin—contrary to Ampleforth’s ethos.
2. Depth cap at launch: Our ampUSD mint could be huge, but the pool’s size is limited by how much USDC the treasury holds on day 0, throttling liquidity from the start.

Pairing ampUSD with USDaf avoids both issues—fully on-chain collateral, and pool depth that scales with the DAO’s own minting capacity.

• Gauge economics.
  A brand-new ampUSD/USDC pool starts with zero Curve weight. Unless we’re ready to burn six-figure bribes every epoch, it might not hit competitive APR fast enough to attract outside liquidity.
• USDaf meta-pool advantage.
  USDaf already sits on a 3-pool base with live gauge emissions. A meta-pool of ampUSD-USDaf inherits that depth and needs a fraction of the vote weight to deliver the same yield. Cheaper, deeper, faster.

2 Why park USDC in USDaf first?

1. No-idle yield. Earn ~8–9 % on capital while ampUSD audits, oracles, and UI go live—zero downtime.
2. Gem → ASF pipeline. ASF governs both USDaf and ampUSD and pockets 25 % of all Liquity-v2 fees. Farming it now is vastly cheaper than buying later.
3. Peg safety net. USDaf is over-collateralised with on-chain redemption. If USDC ever freezes (SVB déjà-vu), ampUSD still has a censorship-proof exit via USDaf.
4. Zero-slip exit. At ampUSD launch we withdraw only the USDaf half we minted; USDC stays in the base pool, so liquidity isn’t yanked and slippage stays flat.
5. Ready-to-go collateral, no extra governance. USDaf already whitelists the stable collateral (sfrxUSD/USDC) we’ll post. No new asset votes, no complex ops—one transaction and we’re farming.

3 What about SPOT? Isn’t that “priority #1”?

Absolutely. But SPOT mint-and-redeem fees are worth multiples only when liquidity is deep. Right now we cannot mint enough SPOT without draining AMPL.

The plan:

1. 90-day pilot with USDaf.
2. If AMPL supply expands (bull market, positive rebases), rotate out of USDaf and bulk-mint SPOT using fresh AMPL.

So USDaf is a bridge strategy, not a forever marriage to help USDaf and ampUSD which in return helps AMPL and bootstraps SPOT.

4 How this hits AMPL-first priorities

Goal	Result
Permanent liquidity	DAO owns both legs of future ampUSD pools; no rent.
Ecosystem growth	Deepens USDaf now, ampUSD later, SPOT thereafter. All three are AMPL derivatives.
Treasury growth	8-10 % stable yield + future ASF fee-share—funds R&D, liquidity, grants.

TL;DR

• The USDaf move is a 90-day, low-risk bridge that pays us to prepare the scaffolding for ampUSD.
• It earns us governance chips (ASF) we’ll wish we had once ampUSD volume explodes.
• It does not block SPOT; it actually makes the eventual SPOT pool cheaper to incentivize.
• Help to grow AMPL that will be used to back ampUSD at first, and when AMPL is big enough and there is an oracle for SPOT (and I assume we need more frequent training to get more reliable oracle signal and integration).

[Pascal]

I see your argument, and I guess we agree to disagree. 2 million can easily be directed to stAMpl incentives to help Spot get a high enrichment rate ahead of ampUSD. A high enrichment rate gets the momentum going to increase Spot liquidity AND sets the stage for high yield ampUSD borrowing. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone. That imo is the most optimal use of 2 million in USDC ahead of ampUSD launch. Spot desperately needs to grow. It’s been 3 years, and it seems like it has been forgotten.

I won’t post anymore, as I’ve said my piece. I respect you as a contributor Roman, and I respect the effort you put into this proposal. But I will NOT be supporting it. Sorry.

[RomanPope]

All these years, and I still haven’t learned how to use these forums lol

@Pascal

I don’t necessarily disagree with you about stAMPL, but I think stAMPL is much better incentified via FORTH which is already done via the Geyser. Also, incentives is not something you can get back as you usually give it away, I wouldn’t want to just give away 2M of USDC, and I don’t expect blanket agreement, but let me flip the lens for a second:

1. Spot incentives ≠ deep Spot liquidity (yet).

Right now we’re still hovering around contraction/flat territory. Pumping $2M into stAMPL fees won’t mint new SPOT unless fresh AMPL arrives first, so the ROI might depend on a macro tailwind we don’t control, and holding stAMPL is a very risk when there is no organic growth. Growth of the WHOLE ecosystem is what would be a good move in my humble opinion.

2. USDaf route creates the tailwind that Spot still needs.

I think something like this is possible:
More USDaf depth → lower effective borrow rate for ampUSD → more AMPL locked → more positive rebases → more AMPL available to mint SPOT.
In other words: USDaf liquidity is the spark that makes the stAMPL engine rev, not the substitute.

Why the borrow rate drops when the pool is deep

1. Liquity-v2 is a two-sided auction.

• Borrowers pre-pay a fixed rate (e.g., “I’ll pay 8 % APR”) to mint ampUSD.
• Stability-Pool lenders supply USDaf only if that rate compensates them for risk (peg slippage + liquidation).

2. A fat USDaf/USDC/USDT pool squeezes slippage to near-zero.

• Lenders see they can exit any time at $1 with minimal loss, so they’re happy to accept lower rates (e.g., 5-6 % instead of 8-9 %).

3. Borrowers adjust downward to get matched.
   Result: the all-in cost of minting ampUSD falls automatically as liquidity rises.

Why that matters for SPOT

• Cheaper ampUSD debt makes levering AMPL collateral more attractive.
• More AMPL gets locked, raising the odds and size of positive rebases.
• A larger AMPL supply gives the DAO (and users) headroom to mint SPOT without draining the existing treasury stack.

So seeding USDaf liquidity isn’t a distraction; it’s the upstream condition that makes the entire AMPL → SPOT → ampUSD cycle self-sustaining.

3. Path is reversible.

90-day pilot → if AMPL’s supply balloons and SPOT liquidity lags, we can:

1. Withdraw USDaf half,
2. Mint SPOT with the newly expanded AMPL
3. Resurrect Operation Bootstrap with SPOT as reward

So it’s not an either-or decision; it’s sequencing:

Phase A: earn yield + ASF, deepen USDaf peg.
Phase B: roll gains—and voting power—into SPOT when AMPL supply justifies it.

That’s why I see the USDaf move as laying track, not changing trains. Appreciate the push-back; healthy debate sharpens the plan, I would hate to not you being more vocal to be honest, we only have to gain from such members as yourself. We don’t have to agree, but I really appreciate your feedback and constructive input. This is not a zero sum game, and this is just the beginning.

[RomanPope]

Based on your feedback, I have added an option to keep the USDC idle as part of the signal vote (and I mean in context of this proposal, as in not to commit it):
https://signal.ampleforth.org/#/proposal/0x9e8c5f4794ef658161f058b12f9702d834f6144e3786fe9b71212984a026a515

[Pascal]

Aalavandan himself said the key to Spot growth is focusing on stAmpl growth..And he knows the system better than anyone else since he wrote all the code…

I am still not convinced that a stAmpl geyser with 2 mil in Forth which is way higher than the current geyser or just some other kind of incentive isnt the most optimal solution right now.

1. It will help stAmpl holders heal as the last 3-4 months have been absolutely devastating. It will restore confidence in stAmpl along with all the new fee changes.
2. It will help Spot have a consistently high enrichment rate, which can translate into more people buying Spot, pushing the price higher and leading to more Spot being flash minted and higher leverage and fees for stAmpl holders. This could possibly be a flywheel.
3. Ampl and Aymmetry marketing can now hone in on Spot yield possibly being sround 20-40% and higher than its counterpart Ethena. This will super charge Spot demand to borrow against for ampUSD.

This really confuses me, because high Spot enrichment rate was the original selling point for ampUSD, and we all know it can work, but we keep getting side tracked on all these side quests and I have no idea as to why.

One very frustrsting part of this whole ampUSD experience is it jusy seems like we cant stick to a PLAN. Things just seem all over the place with all the side quests and distractions. Why is a USDaf pool with 2 million in rewards a high priority? How will this grow the entire AMPL ecosystem? How will this prepare Spot for ampUSD which was the original selling point?

Ampl leadership, Asym leadership - can we hone in on a PLAN and execute a PLAN to put SPOT in the best position it can be to back ampUSD along with Ampl shortly after launch? I know bootstrap was the plan and that fell through but there has to be something else. I think we are just getting too distracted with curve and all these random pools.

The original Spot high apy plan to back ampUSD as a high yield stable feels like it was a great idea at first and now all these sIde quest make it feel like it has been ABANDONED. Which is devastating to me.

[RomanPope]

@Brandon @0xvertigo this is probably something for you guys

[Pascal]

I guess my point was this proposal in my opinion is a low priority. And to give it 20% of the bootstrap budget with AMPL worth 5x less than it was with bootstrap..It just doesn’t make sense to me priority wise.