[TEMP CHECK] Polygon v2 to v3 Liquidity Migration

Reading time saved: 9 minutes

4 replies, 2002 views, 5 likes



MatthewGraham's proposal to incentivize user migration from Polygon v2 to v3 via a multi-token liquidity mining program has sparked community debate. While some argue for organic migration based on v3's features and potential disruptions, others question the assumption that increasing the Reserve Factor (RF) makes v2 less attractive, suggesting that improved v3 market offerings and capital efficiency should naturally drive migration.

The discussion revolves around a proposal by MatthewGraham to encourage the migration of users from Polygon v2 to v3, leveraging the upcoming multi-token liquidity mining program on the Polygon v3 market. The proposal aims to reduce borrowing costs and increase deposit rates, thereby incentivizing users to migrate. The proposal also includes initial parameter changes to support the migration, with the key consideration being the significant upside realized by acting early during the liquidity mining campaign1.

The proposal has sparked a debate within the community. While MatthewGraham argues that the time to initiate the migration is now, given the finite and time-limited rewards being distributed on Aave v3, Sakulstra opposes the proposal, arguing that migration should happen organically due to v3 features and not be forced. He also points out that v3 caps currently would not allow for certain assets to migrate positions and that a drastic change might break existing strategies and integrations without a reasonable migration period and upfront communication3.

WintermuteGovernance questions the assumption that increasing the Reserve Factor (RF) makes supplying to V2 less attractive. They argue that if V3's supply rate is better, profit-maximizing depositors would migrate to V3, increasing V2 utilization and making it more expensive for borrowers. They also mention that borrowers can choose to close their position and exit or migrate. They reiterate their stance against forcefully creating an adverse environment for migration, suggesting that focusing on V3 market offerings, exogenous incentives, and greater capital efficiency should be enough to migrate users over time5.

In conclusion, while the proposal by MatthewGraham aims to incentivize migration from v2 to v3, it has sparked a debate within the community about the best approach to encourage migration. The discussion is ongoing, with the community actively engaging in the debate and providing valuable feedback.

Posted 9 months ago

Last reply 8 months ago

Summary updated 2 months ago

Last updated 09/12 13:52