# Signalling Proposal for Supercharged Pools Creation
**URL:** https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138
**Category:** Proposal Discussion
**Tags:** passed
**Created:** [July 27, 2023, 9:14am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138 "2023-07-27T09:14:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 13
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2023, 9:14am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/1 "2023-07-27T09:14:18Z")
This proposal would signal approval for:
- Creation of the listed Supercharged pools as part of the V17 Software upgrade.
- Addition of the listed migration links to Classic pools.
- Enabling Superfluid Staking on these pools if already present on the linked pool
- Spending up to 10 OSMO per Superfluid pool (170 OSMO) from the community pool to form initial liquidity with a spot price established during the software upgrade.
## Background
During the rollout period, the creation of Supercharged Liquidity pools is permissioned by governance as established in [Proposal 532](https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/532).
The creation of Migration links is also permissioned by governance and allows users to move liquidity directly from a bonded position in the established Classic pool to a bonded position in the linked Supercharged pool. This allows users to maintain Superfluid Staked full range positions with no disruption to rewards.
A migration link also transfers OSMO incentives provided to the Classic pool to the new Supercharged pool, with liquidity remaining in the Classic pool being treated as a full-range Supercharged position that receives a 5% discount on incentives to encourage migration.
With the continued stability of the [Supercharged DAI/OSMO pool](https://app.osmosis.zone/pool/1066), this proposal asks that the bulk of the migration process be carried out during the next software upgrade to minimize governance burden as well as speed up the process.
## Choice of Pools
This proposal creates Supercharged pools for most natively incentivized Osmosis pools with asset exponents of less than 18, representing around 17% of Osmosis Liquidity.
The spread factors proposed on the new Supercharged pools match the ones currently in use on the incentivized Classic pools apart from that of OSMO/CMST, which is adjusted to a 0.05% spread factor from a current swap fee of 0.02%.
There are known issues with creating Supercharged pools using a base asset of exponent 18. These issues should be fixed in a future software upgrade, and this proposal omits those pools from those signaled for creation and migration.
## Costs Incurred
As with [Proposal 532](https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/532), any pools with Superfluid enabled must have liquidity and spot price established in the Supercharged pool at the time of upgrade.
The upgrade handler will pair 1 OSMO with each required asset at a spot price within 0.1% of the spot price in the pool with the newly established Migration link at the time of upgrade using community pool funds, capped at 10 OSMO for safety reasons.
## Pools to be Created
| Quote Asset | Pair Asset | Spread Factor | Linked Classic Pool | Superfluid? | Exponent |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| OSMO | IST | 0.20% | 837 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | CMST | 0.05% | 857 | No | 6 |
| OSMO | WBTC | 0.20% | 712 | Yes | 8 |
| OSMO | DOT | 0.20% | 773 | Yes | 10 |
| OSMO | CRO | 0.20% | 9 | Yes | 8 |
| OSMO | AKT | 0.20% | 3 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | AXL | 0.20% | 812 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | SCRT | 0.20% | 584 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | STARS | 0.30% | 604 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | JUNO | 0.30% | 497 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | STRD | 0.20% | 806 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | MARS | 0.20% | 907 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | ION | 0.50% | 1013 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | XPRT | 0.20% | 15 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | MED | 0.20% | 586 | No | 6 |
| OSMO | SOMM | 0.20% | 627 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | BLD | 0.20% | 795 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | KAVA | 0.20% | 730 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | IRIS | 0.20% | 7 | No | 6 |
| OSMO | stIBCX | 0.30% | 1039 | No | 6 |
| OSMO | DVPN | 0.20% | 5 | No | 6 |
| OSMO | BTSG | 0.20% | 573 | No | 6 |
| OSMO | UMEE | 0.20% | 641 | No | 6 |
| OSMO | HUAHUA | 0.20% | 605 | Yes | 6 |
| OSMO | NCT | 0.20% | 971 | No | 6 |
| OSMO | GRAV | 0.20% | 625 | No | 6 |
**Target On-chain date** : 30th July 2023
---
### Author:  [@RedRabbit33](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/RedRabbit33)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2023, 2:17pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/2 "2023-07-27T14:17:23Z")
Few thoughts:
- Raise the CMST pool spread factor to 0.05% and enable SFS. Both would help the migration to the supercharged pool.
A 0.05% spread factor has been suggested as the likely spread factor for stablecoin paired supercharged pools in the past. The size of the CMST pool seems like an opportunity to get some data on how liquidity providers may react to 0.05% stable paired pools.
Enabling SFS would also bring it in line with other OSMO paired stablecoin pool and help increase stablecoin liquidity on OSMOSIS. Because of the size of liquidity and volume, liquidity incentives could be replaced with SFS to make the pool more attractive, and allow the few OSMO being spent per week on liquidity incentives to be more efficiently and effectively spent elsewhere. I think it would also be a great opportunity to see how effective SFS alone might be to attract and maintain liquidity for low volume pools as there is also the SFS REGEN/OSMO pool that doesn’t received incentives. That being said, it may make sense to also enable SFS to the low volume NCT/OSMO and remove liquidity incentives for the same reasons.
And while even I question how wise it to enable SFS for CMST because OSMO and stOSMO can be used to mint it, I do believe Harbor Protocol’s current stability parameters and minting caps for the OSMO and stOSMO are effective risk management controls, especially if there are no liquidity incentivizes for the pool as ATOM, stATOM, and BTC have historically been more popular collateral assets to mint CMST than either OSMO or stOSMO. These factors make enabling SFS for the CMST/OSMO pool much less riskier than enabling it for the stOSMO/OSMO and qOSMO/OSMO, and slightly less risker than enabling it for the stICBCX/OSMO, at least to me. SFS also seems like an opportunity to grow the pie so to speak as Axelar bridged assets can be used as collateral, there is significantly more CMST liquidity on Crescent, CSwap, and Shade, which White Whale could take advantage of, and is a leverage asset on Umee.
- Create REGEN/OSMO and CHEQ/OSMO supercharged pools too.
Though liquidity incentives have been removed recently from both pools due to low volume, the REGEN pool is still a SFS pool and there REGEN external incentives being provided to the NCT/OSMO, and CHEQ (a Cosmos zero chain) is currently providing external incentives to the CHEQ/OSMO pool. It also may very well help consolidate REGEN and CHEQ liquidity and volume as they both have ATOM paired pools.
Reciprocity and good will doesn’t cost Osmosis much here. And the current list seems like Osmosis is being stingy/miserly. If more than a dozen pools are already being created, and 170 OSMO being spent, I doubt creating a dozen more pools and spending 170 more OSMO is going to break the camels back.
---
### Author:  [@Skorp](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Skorp)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2023, 7:37am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/3 "2023-07-28T07:37:40Z")
Can we add ustc/Lunc ass supercharged pool without superfluid
---
### Author:  [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2023, 9:41am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/4 "2023-07-28T09:41:30Z")
These just cover incentivized pools. Once we go permissionless in a month or two then one of these will likely be created by someone.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2023, 8:02pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/5 "2023-07-29T20:02:06Z")
Will the permissionlessly created pools also have the luxury of having a migration link created? Because that would at least even the playing fields; especially for assets which are SFS enabled.
If not, then LPers would still be subject to a 14-day unbonding period without rewards.
---
### Author:  [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2023, 9:11am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/6 "2023-07-30T09:11:53Z")
Migration links have to be enabled by governance and also don’t cover External Gauges in the new pool.
All Internal Classic pools will be migrated.
So any external incentivised pools will need to go through the unbonding period.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2023, 6:17pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/7 "2023-07-30T18:17:01Z")
What do you exactly mean with “Internal Classic Pools”?
Internally incentivized (read: with OSMO incentives from the regular program)?
In that case, I was more referring to the non-incentivized pools. Those might want to go to supercharged liquidity as well, I guess that as an exchange it would be nice to accomodate them ^^
---
### Author:  [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2023, 8:47am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/8 "2023-07-31T08:47:36Z")
Why would someone be bonded to a pool that doesn’t receive incentives?
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2023, 3:05pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/9 "2023-07-31T15:05:30Z")
Bond and forget…
I am afraid a lot of people might be in pools bonded where it doesn’t give them incentives tbh. Did @HathorNodes not also mention something about passive / inactive liquidity?
---
### Author:  [@HathorNodes](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/HathorNodes)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2023, 7:08pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/10 "2023-07-31T19:08:56Z")
I did talk about this at some point. We realistically have inactive/stagnant liquidity within our LPs. Simply looking at LPers who haven’t performed a transaction in the last X day shows that too. Its typically a very small portion of the liquidity in an LP though. I remember seeing users were still bonded in the ROWAN / OSMO LP for a while after incentives were removed.
On one hand, inactive liquidity doesn’t require incentivizing. On the other hand, identifying inactive liquidity (as opposed to passive but still around investors), is a bit of a grey area.
We’ll have to see what the bonding numbers look like post SCL migrations. It may be worth intervening if there are classic pools w/ external incentives that would benefit from a migration to SCL.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2023, 8:20pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/11 "2023-08-02T20:20:22Z")
Sounds like a plan!
Let’s see what we end up with after this move and decide what to do with the “left-overs” afterwards
---
### Author:  [@j33](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/j33)
#### Post date: [September 22, 2023, 6:37am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/12 "2023-09-22T06:37:58Z")
Will they receive any swap fees as LP provider ?
---
### Author:  [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)
#### Post date: [September 22, 2023, 10:25am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/signalling-proposal-for-supercharged-pools-creation/138/13 "2023-09-22T10:25:10Z")
Still receive swap fees, Hathor is talking about the Osmo subsidy received on top of that