This proposal will allocate OSMO incentives to a 0.01% swap fee WBTC/OSMO pool.
The pool will be made using the WBTC.axl denom, unless there is a convincing argument presented on why another WBTC denom that currently exists on Osmosis should instead be used.
Nice experiment, just like the proposed lower fee pools for ATOM/OSMO. One question to take into account, should we do the same experiment for 2 assets at the same time? Or should we take it 1 by 1 and see what happens?
If we want to go for a 0% and a 0.01% pool for ATOM/OSMO it will yield interesting data which we can use to assess the path forwards for the rest of the pools.
@LeonoorsCryptoman thanks for the comment. I did have somewhat of the same concern about being too “experimental”, which is why I have not proposed a 0% WBTC/OSMO pool yet, however WBTC is the only remaining major incentivized asset without a lower fee offering (albeit at 0.05% instead of 0.01%), so this is not without precedent.
Furthermore the performance of the 0.01% ATOM/OSMO pool has been quite remarkable in the few days it’s been up, already pulling double the volume of pool 1 with a tiny fraction of the liquidity.
In that case; would it be good to indeed do the same experiment for wBTC as well (I also understand the choice for wBTC.axl because it has better liquidity and numbers as far as I remember) and make a separate thread with the relevant information?
Like the numbers of the pools for ATOM/OSMO and the numbers of the pools for wBTC/OSMO?
So that people can quickly dive into the numbers without having to search for the respective pools?
Sure thing. I made separate posts to preserve the forum post to proposal pipeline, but I think an overview post in which to track the status of related proposals is a great idea