What is this about?

The discussion revolves around a proposal titled "[BIP-xxx] Enable tUSDbC/USDbC 50/50 Gauge w/2% emissions cap [Base]" introduced by TETU upon their deployment of version 2 on Base. TETU, an asset management protocol, aims to use Balancer as the primary liquidity source for the tUSDbC token. The proposal seeks to attract liquidity to a tUSDbC pool gauge through emissions and bribes. TETU has provided extensive references to their website, documentation, GitHub, and communities, along with details about governance, audits, and the market history of the tUSDbC token.

How is the community reacting?

The community's reaction is mixed. Tritium criticizes the performance of TETU's pools on Balancer and questions the necessity of the pools, suggesting they are more about increasing yields than providing liquidity. ZenDragon seeks clarification on the benefits of tUSDbC and suggests improvements for sustainability. Xeonus expresses concerns about the complexity of TETU's strategy and past collaboration issues. In contrast, Belbix defends TETU's position, highlighting their readiness to offer real bribes from underlying income and their willingness to redirect claimable rewards to the Balancer DAO in exchange for support.

Why this is positive?

• TETU is ready to offer real bribes from underlying income to attract liquidity, which could benefit the Balancer ecosystem and veBAL holders.
• TETU has made adjustments to their pools and is open to sending rewards directly to the DAO or making other arrangements.
• The proposal could lead to increased user engagement and support for TETU's new product.

Why this is negative?

• There are concerns about the performance of TETU's pools and the necessity of additional pools.
• Some community members are wary of TETU's control over changing parameters and the lack of clear documentation.
• Past incidents have made some community members hesitant to support another risky pool without clear guardrails.

Next actions

The next actions include considering the implementation of a rate provider as suggested by community members. Belbix has expressed willingness to consider this suggestion and has asked for guidance on implementing it. Xeonus has directed Belbix to Balancer's documentation and example rate providers, indicating that any new implementation would need to be reviewed. The Maxis are also available to assist in the process.