[Proposal] Adjust interest parameter to track 20% instead of 19.5%

TLDR:

  • Propose updating the threshold_deposit_rate in the Overseer Contract from 19.5% to 20%.
  • Improve and clarify documentation in Anchor Docs on target_deposit_rate and threshold_deposit_rate

20% APY deposit rate

Since genesis, Anchor protocol has advertised ~20% APY deposit rate. This 20% APY was true up until the May crash which had the protocol using the threshold_deposit_rate rather than the target_deposit_rate which 18% at the time. Currently, the protocol deposit rate has been pegged to 19.5% (the current threshold_deposit_rate) and yet those in the community are still advertising a “stable 20% APY”.

Some could argue that 19.5% is close enough to 20% and I would agree. However, the Anchor yield reserve is up 3.4% in the last 7 days and with ~1 million UST being added every 3 days due to increase bLuna staking yields. Why have a 19.5% APY rate when we can have the true advertised of 20% APY deposit rate?

Proposal

In Anchor Gov Poll #2 , threshold_deposit_rate and target_deposit_rate were adjusted to 19.5% & 20.5% respectively " to maintain a tighter peg around 20%". Although this improved the deposit rate from 18% at the time (genesis threshold deposit rate) to 19.5%, this fell short of holding a tight peg around 20%. Ever since, the Anchor deposit rate has held a tight peg around 19.5% instead of the advertised 20% APY.

Thus, I propose updating threshold_deposit_rate to 20%:

blocks_per_year = 4,656,810
annual_threshold_deposit_rate = 20%

Current threshold_deposit_rate = 0.000000036686454933
Proposed threshold_deposit_rate = annual_threshold_deposit_rate / blocks_per_year = 0.000004294785486

Clarify documentation

The Anchor documentation gives the following definitions for target_deposit_rate and threshold_deposit_rate:

Target Deposit Rate , known as the Anchor Rate adjusts Anchor’s target deposit APY, which the protocol attempts to achieve by constantly controlling the ANC emission rate as borrower incentives

The Threshold Deposit Rate value is the minimum deposit APY that Anchor tries to ensure by making direct deposit rate subsidizations from the yield reserve if the current deposit rate is observed to be below this value.

It seems like since Anchor Gov Poll #2 the target_deposit_rate (20.5%) is unused and the protocol targets the threshold_deposit_rate (19.5%) instead. The documentation needs to clarify when target_deposit_rate is used. The docs state threshold_deposit_rate defines a lower bound on the deposit rate but doesn’t state what happens the reserve is in excess (like it is currently). One would assume that Anchor would target the target_deposit_rate when the yield reserve was increasing, but that is not the case today or else the yield would be 20.5%.

I suggest either the target_deposit_rate definition needs to be updated to reflect when it is used, or it needs to be removed since the current parameter is unused.

Open to feedback on these two issues.

2 Likes

I would discourage this. Here is my reasoning

1 - 19.5% is (I feel) close enough
2 - Over the long term, 20% will not be sustainable anyway. Eventually, demand for ANC deposits will be too great. Eventually, the marketing will change to a different number
3 - instead of raising the deposit APR, which is already the industry leader, the money should be directed towards increased ANC buybacks. More buybacks = higher ANC price = fewer ANC tokens need to be distributed as incentives, thus creating a virtuous cycle

I’ve argued on here in the past that Anchor effectively “overpays” its depositors, which will become even more true as the Anchor userbase over time is increasingly made up of non-crypto natives, who would be thrilled with a quarter of what we are paying.

3 Likes

I agree with @stevedefazio.

Dev resources can be used in better ways than penny-pinching a rate when over the long-term is going to come down or go semi-dynamic.

I appreciate the feedback but I think we are arguing different things.

This proposal is about correcting Anchor Gov Poll #2 which intended to maintain a tighter peg around 20% not 19.5%. This proposal is not asking to increase the rate beyond what was already voted on by the community: 20%.

19.5% and 20% for that matter is currently more than sustainable as shown by the rapidly increasing yield reserve. As for sustainability in the long run, that can be a separate proposal decided on by the community when the yield reserve is decreasing and it no longer seems sustainable. Although, this 20% is likely to be sustainable in the next 2 years due to bLuna staking returns being >10% due to Terra Prop 133 & 134.

To address your last point, ANC buybacks and having the deposit yield be 20% are not mutually exclusive.

This proposal requires zero dev resources. Modifying market parameters can be done directly through an on-chain Anchor governance poll just as it was done in the past for Anchor Gov Poll #2.

Anything close to 20% is unsustainable long term; let’s design for the next 5 years rather than 6 months.

2 Likes

I wasn’t here for the last vote (Anchor) so I read what it was about.

My understanding in summary is that the community voted FOR:

Adjusting threshold_deposit_rate and target_deposit_rate were adjusted to 19.5% & 20.5% respectively " to maintain a tighter peg around 20%".

What we’re proposing now is to continue with this agreement, which is to maintain a tighter peg around 20%.

It’s seems to me this isn’t a discussion on sustainability or how to increase the value of ANC. Instead it’s about doing what we originally intended to do and then did, but better (19.5 is more tight to 20 than 18, but 20 is much much tighter :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:).

Why? Because we can now.

1 Like