Joel_

  • Feb 25, 2023
  • Joined Mar 27, 2022
  • As a member of both DAO's (Jones and Klima) I am in support of this proposal as I believe it to be beneficial for both protocols.

    Benefit for Klima: Earning yield on stablecoins is a foundational aspect to any treasury in an effort to offset operational expenses at the most basic level. jUSDC is an ideal option to fulfil this need in my opinion.

    I also defer to the Klima team to determine a suitable amount to deposit should Jones be whitelisted.

    • json Yeah we'd had some discussion in the discord, kek, about potentially using some of the USDC for inverse bonds. Would be in favour of inverse bonds if they were proposed to become active.
      I'd still personally prefer paying contributors more heavily in USDC (with still a portion of KLIMA, just smaller %) even if there are benefits to paying in KLIMA (I understand why Olympus pay in gOHM and I imagine the same reason apply for KLIMA I just don't agree 100% with those reason).

    • Overall, in favour of this proposal.

      The one change I would like to see however is a heavier weight on the split for USDC. For example something like 30:70 KLIMA to USDC instead of the current 50:50 being proposed.

      Main reason being that paying out less KLIMA per month to contributors can aid in reducing any sell pressure from those "forced" to sell KLIMA if it is a large/primary source of income and they need to money for other things. In addition, those who want more KLIMA can simply buy it with the heavier USDC portion of their allocation thus introducing more buy pressure into the market.

      Ty

      • Fully in support of this proposal as I believe earning yield on our assets is a key part to Klima's success.

        On the specific topic of staking a portion of the KLIMA/USDC LP I'm on the side of staking the max of 50% and being in favour of something such as the below when it comes to locking durations:

        • 5% locked for 1 month
        • 10% locked for 4 months
        • 15% locked for 8 months
        • 20% locked for 1 year

        Personally in favour of having a heavier distribution towards longer duration locks (i.e. 8 months and 1 year) to maximize yield whilst also having a small proportion at shorter duration locks (i.e. 1 month and 4 months) for in the event other opportunities arise that we want to take advantage of and not miss out on, which may require a redistribution of a portion of the KLIMA/USDC liquidity to another pool.

        However, as I say all of this I'm also in favour of a 50% stake at max lock a.k.a. stake that shit