Builds_Writing_The Pit_Firedancer_
  • Builds
  • Compositions
    • Research
    • Macro
    • Spotlights
    • News
    • Podcasts
    • Media
  • Chronicle
  • The Pit
  • Firedancer
  • Careers
  • Connect
  • Brand & Press
Terms of Use_Privacy Policy_Disclaimers_

Solidly Emissions, A Deep Dive

Lucas Baker
Lucas Baker
Maher Latif
Maher Latif
Ben Huan
Ben Huan
Anirudh Suresh
Anirudh Suresh
Spence Pitts
analysisSpotlights

Mar 04 _ 5 min read

Solidly Emissions, A Deep Dive

Summary: We believe public expectations are consistent with the SOLID emissions rate gradually decreasing over ~3 years, but the minter code and historical weekly rebases indicate a much faster tail, with the bulk of emissions distributed over the next 2-3 months.

Emissions - public understanding

“The concept is simple, every week SOLID emissions will be distributed starting from 20,000,000 per week decaying at a rate of 2% per week. From week 167, emissions decrease further as the total supply reaches 1 billion SOLID. veSOLID holders decide which liquidity providers receive those emissions.” - Solidex Medium

The public understanding of the Solidly emissions schedule is largely reflective of the statement above. That is, the weekly emissions cap is simply a function of the 2% weekly decay. The weekly emissions cap should in theory look like:

Week 0 - 20M

Week 1 - 98% * 20M = 19.6M

Week 2 - 98% * 19.6M = 19.208M

Emissions - our reading of the code

However, a deep dive into the code reveals that this description of emissions schedule is out of line with what the protocol actually does. The BaseV1-minter.sol file contains the logic for the emissions mechanism. The original framing is correct in asserting that the weekly SOLID emissions cap is multiplied by a factor of 0.98, meaning there is a 2% supply cap decay. However, it disregards the presence of another multiplicative factor, the percent of total SOLID that is circulating, which decays the total emissions for that week by the percentage of SOLID that is ve-locked. In particular:

  • Line 90 multiplies the supply cap (weekly) by the aforementioned 2% decay (emission/target_base) and the ratio of circulating supply to total supply (circulating_supply()/_token.totalSupply()).
  • Line 114 sets the new supply cap for the next week to this week’s emission

Combined, this means that **the supply cap is decreasing from week to week as a function of double decay, in terms of both the well-understood 2% constant decay and the less familiar circulating supply decay.

The BaseV1-minter.sol file that contains the emissions logic

This differs quite substantially from what the original framing indicates for SOLID emissions decay. Exactly how much? The Solidex article posits that by week 167, emissions will tail off as the total SOLID emissions reaches 1 billion. Our analysis reveals that this is far from the case—by our estimate, emissions will taper off by week 15 under the most conservative estimates. Below, we provide plots for the emissions decay with different assumptions about the proportion of SOLID emissions that gets locked up.

It’s worth mentioning that Andre’s original blog post ve(3, 3) explicitly mentions the weighting by the percentage of circulating supply.

How much gets locked?

20 million of ve is effectively perma-locked—therefore, the most conservative estimate of the emissions cap is more accurately modeled by the following function:

In subsequent weeks, emitted SOLID can be locked (and SOLID that has been locked for its tenure can be unlocked), making it hard to know exactly what the circulating supply proportion will be. But we note that even in the case where no SOLID apart from the original 20 million airdropped ve is locked—the most conservative of estimates, given that this maximizes the circulating supply proportion and therefore the future emissions of SOLID—the total net issuance over the first 167 weeks is 180.10 million SOLID, well below 1 billion. For more perspective on how the reality of SOLID emissions differ starkly from public understanding as set by the Solidex blog post, see Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Emissions taper much more quickly than public expectations

We also emphasize that if more SOLID is locked up beyond the original 20 million, the decay of emissions only accelerates. Figure 2 shows that if the proportion of marginal SOLID emissions that is locked up increases, emissions decline more precipitously.

Figure 2 - Emissions under varying lockup assumptions

Testing the hypothesis - observed emissions

As a sanity check, we tested our recreation of how emissions worked against the observed mint amounts for week 1 and 2. If our model was correct, then the first week of emissions after the original 20 million airdrop should have been

as opposed to 19.6 million. We found this matched the actual emissions for week 1.

Then, we took the SOLID lockup rate at the time (which was stable around 25%) and used that to compute our prediction for the weekly emissions for week 2 one day before emissions:

which contrasts greatly to 19.208 million. Indeed, we found that our prediction came fairly close to the actual emissions (10.98 million), with the only discrepancy coming from the exact proportion of SOLID that was locked up (closer to 71.5%). One can track the state of the current weekly emissions cap on FTMScan.

Emissions compared to CRV

CRV is obviously a reasonable comparison point. Many of the design blog posts explicitly referenced CRV. Using the public emissions schedule from https://dao.curve.fi/inflation, we can plot two comparison points: the expected and actual emission schedule for the first 100 weeks (using the most conservative estimate of 0% locked apart from the original 20 MM to NFT holders).

Figure 3 - Cumulative emissions per public expectations
Figure 4 - Cumulative emissions (most conservative lock assumption)

The shape of the above emissions curves is markedly different. Even under the most conservative lock assumptions, a significant majority of the total emissions accrued over 100 weeks is emitted in the first 10 weeks.

Consequences

If the analysis is correct, there are two clear consequences relative to expectations:

  1. Lower supply means that each SOLID is a much larger fraction of the fully diluted value
  2. The double exponential decay rate leads to a much quicker convergence to the tail emissions value (0.2%).

Is this also how you understand it? Please let us know what we got wrong. Lucas Baker (@sansgravitas), Ben Huan (@HoochieDada), Maher Latif (@maherlatif_), Anirudh Suresh (@anihamde)

Share

Contributors

Lucas Baker
Lucas Baker

Lucas is an investor and researcher at Jump, where he focuses on protocol and mechanism design, tokenomics and governance, decentralized identity, and core L1/L2 blockchain infrastructure.

.View all posts (5)

Maher contributes to Jump Crypto’s R&D efforts and previously worked on monetary policy research at the Federal Reserve Board. He is also a Fulbright and Schwarzman Scholar.

.View all posts (4)

Ben contributes to Jump Crypto's R&D efforts as a Quantitative Researcher. Previously, he worked for ten years as a quant in high frequency trading.

.View all posts (2)

Ani contributes to R&D efforts at Jump Crypto. Among other things, he’s worked on smart contract development, incentive and protocol design, and future potential use cases of crypto in the real world.

.View all posts (5)

More articles

SAFU: Creating a Standard for Whitehats

SAFU: Creating a Standard for Whitehats

Whitehats and DeFi protocols need a shared understanding of security policy. We propose the SAFU - Simple Arrangement for Funding Upload - as a versatile and credible way to let whitehats know what to...

Oct 24 _ min

Share

Disclaimer

The information on this website and on the Brick by Brick podcast or Ship Show Twitter spaces is provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.  This information is not intended to be and does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, trading advice, or any other type of advice.  You should not make any decision – financial, investment, trading or otherwise – based on any of the information presented here without undertaking your own due diligence and consulting with a financial adviser.  Trading, including that of digital assets or cryptocurrency, has potential rewards as well as potential risks involved. Trading may not be suitable for all individuals. Recordings of podcast episodes or Twitter spaces events may be used in the future.

Jump_
Terms of Use_Privacy Policy_Disclaimers_

© 2022 Jump Crypto. All Rights Reserved.