veCurve works well because there are constantly new projects trying to get access to liquidity on Curve. It also makes sense for DEXs like Astroport, for which accumulation of veTokens serves much the same purpose.
But for Anchor, are we really expecting that protocols that make liquid staking derivatives are going to fight over Anchor to get their gauge voted in? There are a limited amount of these protocols and once established, the network effects are so strong that it really doesn’t make much sense for new entrants to come into the space. For instance, Lido already controls almost all liquid staked ETH. Luna is a bit more competitive with LunaX from Stader but it’s still an oligopoly. I assume other chains will be the same.
I just see this to be a rather ineffective solution. It might do something but is it going to do anything substantial? I hope to be proven wrong but I don’t think so.
Anchor’s fundamental issue is that borrowing is just too expensive. Between the interest rate and the yield you are giving up, Anchor Borrow is simply uncompetitive in the current marketplace. You have to incentivize borrowing first and foremost. The veANC model could be applied to this, in that users who lock up the most amount of ANC will have the most amount of ANC emissions directed to them, making borrowing cheaper (perhaps even be paid to borrow). This will give incentives to protocols building on top of Anchor to accumulate as much ANC as possible to give borrowers that use their interface the best possible borrow rate (think like Vector Finance & Platypus except w/ borrowing rather than single sided staking).
Something like this is a pretty good idea as well: