Valkyrie protocol update #2

Fellow Valkyrie Community Members!

As part of our pursuit of providing a safe and secure protocol, we are preparing for a direction shift to a new AMM system. As part of this preparation, Valkyrie Protocol is making security improvements to its current LP pool practices.

Going forward, Valkyrie Protocol will look to limit participation to the VKR-UST pool to only direct participation from the Valkyrie WebApp, and look to further prevent 3rd party smart contract participation until further notice. We decided on this approach as we believe this will secure the LP pool while protecting LP incentives for the Valkyrians who use the Valkyrie Protocol’s LP pool.

We are currently having very constructive dialogue with our AMM partners, and we will share the news as it progresses with our community members!


This decision has been taken without any governance vote.

In my opinion, it is a horrible decision, and even worse because you force everyone to follow your thoughts.

It exactly looks like what we want to avoid in the DeFi world. People are making random decisions for the sake of “safety” without any discussion ahead.

Especially when you can read multiple times that people believe SPEC is at fault for the token’s price drop. Coincidentally, this block SPEC LP…


So what exactly is the purpose of holding Valkyrie to Vote when you just simply do what you want?


just ask to spec and other projects to fix a rigid parametrizatiuon if you fear too much sell pressure.
I think that having avoided a discussion and the usage of governance is a mistake.
What about asking for a votation on a reasonable proposal (like temporary blockig full rewards for farming projects and rediscussion of their parametrization? We will all approve and the token will not loose value)
Bypassing governance is suicidal for VLK and bad for terra: now i can fear that each project can arm another or user trading strategies without going through governance.

Agree, this is not the way to handle sell pressure. No governance, just a unilateral decision, and the token holders that are down bad, have to accept this.

1 Like

Great step… towords community members

I think this is shortsighted . If a user is yeild farming in an autocompounder they are obviously in the pool in order to maximize their profits . What makes you think people wont manually compound or sell rewards on a less frequent basis.

I understand you are trying to reduce selling pressure, a noble goal, why not look in to a vested LP rewards model where LP rewards can be claimed in to a vesting contract that slowly releases rewards ? And to accommodate yield farms you could allow early withdrawals with a large penalty . Penalty could be redistributed to LP and goverance stakers as vested VKR perhaps 30% goes to gov, 70% to LP where LP rewards are vested as LPers are taking more risk .

Or another idea, tiered LP rewards that tiers LP rewards based on how much VKR is staked in governance. This way your encouraging people to put their rewards in GOV. You could probably combine both of these models .

And one piece of friendly criticism , in trying to reduce the selling pressure of VKR you forgot that one of it’s main functions is a governance token. This stuff should go to vote.

1 Like

I strongly disagree with this unilateral decision. The way forward to stabilize price action is to create utility for VKR, as you’ve begun to do with IPC launches announced today. This roundabout idea to shut down Spec but under the guise of moving AMMs just creates bad feelings in the ecosystem.

If you desire to shut down compounding long-term, come to gov stakers with hard evidence of any “damage” compounders are doing and let us decide. I would suggest a first step may be creating a flipside crypto bounty to figure out how much sell action is due to compounding, how much due to unlocks, airdrops etc. Make your recommendation at that point and then let stakers make an informed decision.