Compound 新提案拟缩减流动性奖励,流动性挖矿过时了吗?

蜂巢TechPublished on 2022-03-30Last updated on 2022-03-30

Abstract

普遍性的流动性激励往往吸引许多不忠实的流量,不利于协议长期发展。

在 2020 年掀起流动性「挖矿」浪潮的 Compound 正在逐步弃用这套激励措施。
几天前,Compound 社区成员 Tyler Loewen 发起了 92 号提案,提议将现有 COMP 奖励减少 50%。3 月 27 日,该提案被投票通过并开始执行,这使得 COMP 每日释放量将由 2312 枚降低至 1156 枚。
在社区看来,通证奖励吸引了许多投机者前来进行收益耕作,他们并不是协议真正的使用者,在获得奖励后会立即倾销 COMP,这对于真正的用户和通证持有者极为不利。
在通证奖励降低后,Tyler Loewen 还计划于 4 月 15 日发起取消流动性奖励的提案,他认为,将奖励用在借贷的实际业务层更有意义。
Tyler Loewen 最终的目标是引入替代奖励计划「kickstart 奖励」,该方案的逻辑是提高某资产的存款年化,以快速壮大该资产的市场规模,当存款量达到一定程度,借贷利率也将变得足够低,如此一来可以吸引更多的借贷活动。
自流动性贡献奖励兴起以来,DeFi 的整体市场规模获得了大幅增长,但其弊端在此期间也显露无遗。普遍性的流动性激励往往吸引许多不忠实的流量,不利于协议长期发展。在业内人士看来,将激励用在使协议更快满足市场需求上是更好的选择。
Compound 通过流动性奖励减半提案
2020 年 6 月 15 日,以太坊借贷协议 Compound 开创性地推出流动性激励计划,向参与借贷的双方分发 COMP 通证奖励。此举成为引爆 DeFi 市场的导火索,Balancer、Curve、SushiSwap 等应用纷纷推出激励机制,引发了一波「收益耕作」的淘金潮。
近两年后的今天,流动性挖矿的鼻祖 Compound 开始认真考虑停止 COMP 激励计划。社区认为,通证奖励吸引了许多投机者前来进行收益耕作,他们并不是协议真正的使用者,在获得奖励后,会立即倾销 COMP,这对于真正的用户和通证持有者极为不利。
3 月 19 日,Compound 社区成员 Tyler Loewen 在治理模块发起了以「COMP 奖励调整」为主题的 92 号提案,他提议将现有 COMP 奖励减少 50%,作为 Compound 彻底停止流动性激励的第一步。

借贷

 Compound 奖励减半提案获批
Tyler Loewen 称,COMP 奖励计划的最初目标是将通证分发给协议用户,虽然这是启动 Compound 和奖励早期用户的有效方式,但为了利润而进行 COMP 耕作的做法已经变得非常成问题。他观察到,当前,奖励计划分发的大多数 COMP 会立即售罄,这种耕作行为不会为协议或现有用户和通证持有者带来价值。
3 月 24 日,这项提案获得了超过 88 万 COMP 的赞成票,8.75 万 COMP 的反对票。最终,在 Polychain Capital、MonetSupply、GFX Labs、Pantera Capital 等机构的支持下,该提案顺利通过,并已于 3 月 27 日开始执行。
按照原先的 COMP 分发方式,每日分发 2312 COMP,这种分配机制将一直持续到储备金用完为止。分配给储备库的超 450 万 COMP 全部分发完毕将花费大约 4 年时间。按这个进度,COMP 奖励预计还将持续两年多。
在 92 号提案通过后,COMP 每日分发将降低至 1156 枚,这意味着收益耕作的收益率将降低 50%,而分发时间也将延长。
从当前社区的讨论来看,许多人对于停止奖励分发持开放态度,社区成员 Clairvoyant Labs 表示,同意结束 COMP 的通货膨胀,以使 COMP 持有者的份额不再被稀释。
根据 92 号提案发起者 Tyler Loewen 的计划,他还将于 4 月 15 日再次发起「将现有奖励降低为零」的提案,「该提案标志着以牺牲协议、用户以及通证持有者为代价的 COMP 农耕时代即将结束。」
这项提案能否被通过还有待投票决定,但 Compound 社区驱逐投机者的意图十分明显。
社区拟引入替代奖励计划激励用户
截至 3 月 29 日,Compound 协议锁仓的加密资产总价值(TVL)为 72.8 亿美元,近 7 天上涨了 3.79%。奖励减半的提案通过后,协议的 TVL 暂未大幅流失。
可以预见的是,如果停止奖励发放,用户在 Compound 的质押收益率也将大幅下降,届时追逐存款收益的用户不排除会迁移去其他协议,存贷资金流动性不足的风险可能会出现。
为了防止这种情况发生,Tyler Loewen 认为,Compound 需要进一步优化利率模型。他表示,协议的市场规模和活动不应由 COMP 奖励来决定,而应该让供需接管。「过去的时间,我们深深忽视了利率模型,当前的次优利率模型可能难以维持各种资产的借贷市场,同时保持足够的流动性。」
当前,在 Compound 存入主流资产的利率相比 AAVE 等借贷平台不占优势。以存入 USDT 为例,AAVE 的年化收益率为 4.89%,dForce 为 6.41%,而 Compound 为 3.55%;存入资产为 ETH 时,AAVE 的年化收益率为 0.39%,dForce 为 1.02%,Compound 仅为 0.07%。
由于收益率不及其他 DeFi 协议,Compound 的 TVL 当前排在 DeFi 协议第 8 位,落后于 Lido、Maker、Aave 等其他具有「理财」属性的应用。

借贷

 Compound TVL 排在 DeFi 协议第 8 位
社区成员认为,Compound 的利率模型还有优化的空间,需要智能衡量市场供需关系,并随之实时调整为最优的利率水平,以吸引用户加入。
此外,一旦 Compound 停止流动性激励的提案通过,Tyler Loewen 还计划引入替代奖励计划「kickstart 奖励」,该方案是在三个月内以 Y% 年化收益率激励某个资产的市场规模达到 X 美元。其中的 X 和 Y 作为变量尚有待讨论。
比如,Compound 想要开通 APE Coin 的借贷通道,但流动性不够,那么平台便可以使用储备金提高 APE 存款池的收益率,例如以 8% 的年化收益率吸引 1000 万美元的存款。Tyler Loewen 认为,只有吸引储户提供足够的流动性,才能降低借贷成本,吸引更多借贷活动。
Tyler Loewen 的提案计划公布后迎来许多讨论,多数社区成员认为,相比统一向所有存款和借贷用户发放奖励,将激励用在借贷本身的业务场景中是更理想的方案。
Compound 流动性激励策略的改变也给其他 DeFi 协议带来启发。当前,除了 Uniswap 不再分发 UNI 外,多数 DeFi 协议仍维持着流动性激励方案,但这种方式的弊端早已显现,流动性奖励往往难以有效提升协议的真实使用率,对协议的长期发展不太有利。
DeFi 行业观察者认为,在认识到流动性挖矿的弊端后,协议们应该将目光着眼于需求,并将激励用在满足需求方面,比如在人们有新资产的交易需求时,DEX 协议可以通过激励方式快速提高新资产的流动性,以降低交易滑点,从而吸引用户前来交易。「当激励回归业务场景,而不再追求短暂的 TVL 和用户增长,才能让协议走在良性的发展轨道上。」

Related Reads

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

Has the crypto utopia collapsed? The industry is at an inflection point as the hype fades. The prevailing view is that crypto has become an outlet for excess liquidity, with many participants leaving as financial returns have fallen short of past-decade expectations. The 2021 boom has been revealed as an illusion, placing the industry in the "trough of disillusionment" on Gartner's Hype Cycle. This forces a return to first principles: re-evaluating token value, securing DeFi protocols, and finding real-world applications. The core failure is a repetitive cycle of reflexive speculation, driven by the premature liquidity of tokens. The industry's incentives prioritized short-term gains over genuine innovation. While curiosity drives invention, recent DeFi hacks signal a need for engineering and iteration, including token models. The culture is shifting; the industry is no longer in its early stages. Positioned at a turning point on the technology adoption curve, crypto faces the immense challenge of rebuilding finance from scratch, a process of inevitable iteration and failure. Regarding crypto VC, claims of its death are overstated. The exceptional returns of 2016-2021 were an anomaly. The initial crypto-anarchist ethos has largely been co-opted by Wall Street and regulators. The utopian vision is over; the industry is being assimilated into the existing system, becoming a business. Current viable project categories include stablecoins, prediction markets, tokenized assets/RWA, perpetual contracts, and AI/agent integration. Crypto is converging with fintech, far from the envisioned DeFi revolution, and must find killer apps within regulatory boundaries. A reconciliation is possible: cryptocurrency may change value storage and transfer in subtle, imperceptible ways that integrate into existing systems, rather than through revolutionary fanfare. True creativity often emerges from adversity. There remains much to build for those driven by genuine curiosity.

marsbit7m ago

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

marsbit7m ago

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

On July 28th, Changxin Technology's stock price on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board experienced minor fluctuations. The company had made a historic market debut the previous day, becoming the first A-share stock to record a single-day trading volume exceeding 1 trillion yuan. This led to significant paper gains for its strategic investors. Among them, Xiaomi's wholly-owned subsidiary was allocated 18.24 million shares with an initial investment of approximately 158 million yuan. Reports estimated a paper profit of 717 million yuan for Xiaomi founder Lei Jun based on his shareholding structure. However, a Xiaomi executive clarified that this was a corporate investment and should not be conflated with personal wealth. Other major beneficiaries included Alibaba and Nio. Alibaba, an early investor, held nearly a 5% stake through two entities, with an estimated paper gain exceeding 160 billion yuan. Nio, participating in the strategic placement, also saw substantial paper returns. Additionally, state-owned banks and insurance institutions that invested in Changxin recorded potential gains in the hundreds of billions. Conversely, companies like Country Garden reportedly missed out on nearly 50 billion yuan in potential gains after divesting their stakes before the IPO due to liquidity pressures. The article notes that these are paper profits based on the listing price, as the allocated shares are subject to lock-up periods, and final realized gains will depend on future stock performance. An employee from Changxin Technology commented that ordinary staff remain focused on their salaries and benefits rather than the market hype.

marsbit16m ago

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

marsbit16m ago

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

"The Token vs. Outcome Sale: Key Paradoxes in the AI Business Model By mid-2026, the AI industry shows rapid growth in revenue and token usage, yet the underlying business models differ significantly. This article analyzes four structural paradoxes defining the current landscape, all pointing to the commoditization of intelligence and the concentration of profits in few segments. **The Cost Paradox: Cheaper Tokens, Heavier Bills** Despite a >95% price drop for equivalent AI capability since 2023, total spending has skyrocketed due to the Jevons Paradox: lower prices expand usage into previously uneconomical tasks. Furthermore, the shift to autonomous agents operating 24/7 multiplies consumption. However, efficiency gains often remain unrealized due to unchanged organizational workflows (the Solow Paradox). The focus is shifting from optimizing token price to optimizing the task itself. **The Hierarchy Paradox: The App is King vs. The App is Dead** While conventional wisdom holds that value accrues at the application layer, the AI stack is inverted. Infrastructure (chips) captures ~70% of industry revenue and ~80% of gross profit, while application-layer margins are thin (0-30%). Fast-evolving base models threaten "thin" apps. Sustainable applications are those that embed intelligence into specific contexts, possessing private data, workflows, or delivery capabilities that become more valuable as the base model improves. **The Responsibility Paradox: Profit Follows Accountability** Growth rates alone don't guarantee profit. A key differentiator is a company's willingness and ability to take responsibility for specific outcomes. Selling by the token competes for IT budgets; selling by the outcome (e.g., a resolved support ticket) taps into larger human labor budgets. Low-responsibility, high-volume tasks (e.g., generic客服) face commoditization. High-stakes, regulated domains (e.g., law, healthcare) where vendors assume heavier liability for results command higher margins, as seen with companies like Harvey in legal tech. **The Open-Source Paradox: Open Wins Traffic, Closed Wins Revenue** Open-source models dominate in usage share and developer adoption, often being 5-20x cheaper. However, closed-source models still capture the majority of enterprise spending (~89%). Enterprises pay a premium for closed-source reliability, support, compliance, and accountability. The total cost of ownership (TCO) is converging as closed-source prices fall faster than open-source builds trust, leading to hybrid deployments. Profit is migrating from the model layer itself to upstream (compute) and downstream (orchestration, data, services)."

marsbit17m ago

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

marsbit17m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片