Use apy token to access yield percentages along with possible token burn and token lend platform

OK here goes … how about we make it mandatory that apy token is held to access levels of yield …
One exchange does this now with their cro token…
We and the team can decide on this rate held to access top yield
This gives us token utility
We can also have token burning ….but at 100 million coins if my idea goes well we won’t need it as it creates scalability.
Another network also has a program where you lease tokens to indivuals/entity’s that want to access tokens to use …. ex lease 1000 apy to use for 3 months get 1250 back… not sure of the legality as i have not done it yet … but that allows a user to access the roboadvisor for very little cost… it’s an idea that i’m sure the team and all of us can look into further.
Furthermore I think whales will keep their apy even if they withdraw stables as who wants to buy back higher…. kind of what wall street bets has going on ….no one sells so when a buyer wants to buy the price is higher… just thoughts here … all this without directly adding to the coin value
To the team i’m sure you’ve thought of this i’m just putting it out there……
I don’t want anyone in trouble btw you are worth more than that to all of us.


Regarding the token burn portion of the OP, @TOMMO1 had mentioned in the Telegram chat that there are those who say that token burns have the potential to have a negative long-term effect on the strength of the token. I did a little digging and found plenty of discussion around potential upside like creating a supply crunch to have a temp effect on price as well as ways token burns are used to secure a network, but not much discussing potential downsides.

@TOMMO1 would you be able to expand on what others are saying the negatives are?

Also, as @geezer alluded to in his post, it’s possible that a token burn might not even be necessary when there is a definite max supply of 100m tokens?

– My two sats

1 Like

I like the idea, but I would like to see some definite numbers. Here are my first thoughts on some things that need to be ironed out.

  1. What is the minimum APY needed? If it’s too low it won’t do much for utility and too high would put off a large audience of smaller investors.

  2. Whatever you set the minimum at, how will that scale? For example if it’s 1 APY per 50 USDC in the platform, or if you make it a standard one time amount, how will that change as APY price fluctuates. At 1-50, it’s reasonable at current prices for everyone, but if APY goes to $10 then that becomes a huge amount relative to USDC investment.

  3. I suppose the leasing system could be a solution to the scaling. But the leasing program itself has its own challenges. Even in Chintai with their CHEX leasing program we haven’t seen exactly how it’ll all work yet since they’re still in Beta.

Overall though I think it’s a solid idea, but we definitely need to see something more concrete numbers wise before I’d be comfortable voting for it. Hopefully people will add helpful ideas to this beyond just “I like it” or “I hate it” since those don’t really further anything.

1 Like

It could be a fixed % of the value of stablecoins. This % could be zero or very low at start and then it can be raised

1 Like

So, in essence, this would be: holding APY permits you to use APY’s stable coin roboadvisor? Is there any particular reason we wouldn’t want to require someone to hold APY to use

For sure everything you brought up is true i’ll look into numbers further but to be honest we need more data . The reason being we don’t know what to expect short term. But as i brought up in telegram today it costs a pretty penny through a stake to get high yield… and maybe a timelock too . Ideas were needed so i threw this out there . I think (assume) we can come and go from apy easily… that also has a value.

I dont think this is a good idea as it stands as it creates a barrier to entry long term as the price for each token goes higher. However, you maybe on the right track, perhaps buying $10-20 worth of apy is a minimum to access yield and a sliding scale of greater yield access with greater exposure into apy?

Max to get a low yield you would be required to hold very little apy… I never expressed this but has this idea already and their coin moons…To get the higher yield which is coming the team says… you would have to hold some significant apy coin… this platform isn’t to make you rich it’s to enrich what you have …. to get 30 or 40 percent on your money there should be a cost…. less cost for lower yield more for higher yield…If we don’t lock up the apy tokens or give someone a reason not to dump we will struggle with token price

1 Like

Also 20 dollars for a requirement is not to scale with what it costs just to deposit stables in the platform …. i’m at like least 2 to 5 hundred dollars as entry…and up from there for now

Sure I agree there should be a sliding scale of depositing apy proportional to the yield they can get i just think there shouldn’t be a barrier to entry to use the platform that is all.

I totally agree. We need much greater token utility or there is literally no reason for someone to buy it. Governance to most is nice but isn’t a big deal.

Right now any token rewards will be dumped on the market and this token will continue to do exactly what it has done since launch…down 60%.

I hold APY and like the project but I wouldn’t put my money in the protocol with the current state of the token utility. Dumping what I currently have is an option if it is not addressed.

If utility needs are met then this project will be awesome.

My two cents.

1 Like

The burn mechanic is not a solution for token appreciation.

We need to make people remove APY token from circulation. Lets use Olympus example and allow people to stake them. By staking your tokens you receive either higher yield from the platform or part of the yield from strategies if no stable coins are staked.

This is financial incentive to buy tokens. The more tokens you have the more yield you receive from the platform.


Burning isn’t the best solution imo I suggest some sort of boost or reward as an incentive to hold Apy.

Buying Apy from the open market with the platform revenue is a great idea imo but it needs to go hand in hand with staking or reward mechanism to holders to attract more holders and semi permanently remove tokens from circulation. (Nothing is removed permanently due to supply and demand dynamics)

1 Like

Expanding on @geezer 's original post and following up on our Discord and Telegram chats I wanted to add an incremental suggestion to the original post. Thanks to @JulioCesarDeFi and Kyle (Geezer) for the encouragement and origination of this thread.

I’d like to open by saying that I have no doubt the following text misses or glosses over numerous subtleties and complexities but I hope it can be a catalyst for further discussion.

This proposal addresses the implementation of a “boost” feature for APY, similar to Curve where locking your tokens in exchange for vote escrowed equivalents gives you access to “boosted” rewards/returns and increased voting power. Selecting a longer duration for your locking period proportionally increases the size of your rewards and your voting power. Locking is also non-reversible.

By making the veCRV (or in our case a theoretical veAPY) tied to rewards and voting power you encourage long-term holding and greater rewards for individuals. This also encourages other platforms (and the users of those platforms) to buy and lock-in your token in order to gain voting rights (think of a cxvAPY on Convex). In doing so those other platforms can propose changes to the APY strategies that direct greater benefits to their platform. For example; this could be weighting the volume of funds that are directed to a particular strategy/farm to boost the TVL for that platform compared to their competitors.

It should be noted that vote escrowed tokens can only be obtained through the locking process, they cannot be acquired on the secondary market.

Further to this, to maintain the approachability of the platform for newcomers, some of these features could be accessible in the UI by toggling a Simple/Advanced mode slider.

If a new user simply wants “base level” returns and no voting ability, they can still deposit stables and use the platform as originally intended.

To access greater yields, riskier strategies, receive rewards in APY, voting and boosted voting etc., there’s the Advanced mode where it’s possible to view and interact with all of these new features.

My goal is that this provides an incentive for both institutions and individuals to acquire and hold APY, maximizing the utility of the token.

1 Like

I guess my 2 cents on this is we should keep it simple, and I don’t think there should be a barrier of entry to the platform. I worry it would complicate things. Also the legalities need to be analyzed.

I’ve mentioned this in other locations, but I think whatever expands token utility with the cleanest UX is best. Staking rewards with a simple toggle option, or just the ability to stake APY.

But, just to play my own devils advocate, if the platform really really worked and let’s say people could get secure and trusted 50% returns, why then would they elect to stake APY at a lesser rate vs. dumping rewards back into stables and redeposting Or are APY rewards autocompunded?

Even if say people
could start with stables and after some
period of time they could elect a feature
to stake their existing rewards to ‘unlock’
some different farms. Something like
that, but at least the entry is simple and
you only need stables.

I’m in complete agreement with you that any solution needs to retain the ability for anyone, APY holder or not, to use the platform and access competitive yields for stables in the most simple, gas efficient way possible.

Seems the “advanced mode” toggle has some support which is good to hear and I like your ‘unlock feature’ thinking.

I was pondering last night, with my earlier boost proposal, how do we scale the incentives/rewards with the number of APY held, to incentivize holding more APY?
This works for Curve because number of veCRV and duration locked scales not just your rewards earned but your voting power and voting power is directly tied to the ability to direct the share of platform rewards by voting on the Gauge.

The more veCRV you hold and the longer you lock it for, the more votes you have, the more votes you have the larger the share of the platform rewards you can direct to your Pool. This drives competition between platforms to acquire more CRV to lock it as veCRV.

To replicate it exactly is probably too complex for where we want to get to, however, my goal was to try and replicate the benefits that this approach has to both individuals and institutions for holding APY.


The one thing that I do fail to address in my notes are any of the regulatory challenges that possibly come with this approach. I think that this proposal: Stability Treasury & Safety Router Proposal from @Tahouse does however address them quite well.
I like the stability pool and safety router proposals and perhaps merging of these with consideration for a progressive curve in terms of rewards to timelocks post DAO?