<aside> 🎯 The goal of this analysis is to understand how TVL and liquidity on pools react to changes in incentives.

</aside>

<aside> ➡️ If incentives increase and TVL doesn’t, there could be a waste of incentives. If when incentives decrease TVL doesn’t change, it means the pool is rather sticky and we should try to decrease again.

</aside>

To measure that, we built a dashboard comparing the change in ANGLE incentives each pool receives with their change in TVL, week over week.

<aside> ⚠️ We have to keep in mind the change in ANGLE price when looking at it.

</aside>

Impact of ANGLE incentives on pools TVL

Findings

https://dune.com/embeds/1885529/3101270

Aug. 22nd → Sep. 5th 2022 (two weeks)

Sep. 26th → Oct. 10th 2022 (two weeks)

Oct. 10th → Oct. 24th 2022 (two weeks)

Dec. 19th → Dec. 26th 2022

Jan. 30th → Feb. 6th 2023

Conclusions

1. Once pools are “setup”, our reward increases are usually under-effective, and decreases over-effective (less TVL loss than incentives decrease). Also, the bigger the pool, the less a change in incentives seem to make an impact.
   → incentives seem to be an efficient way to attract liquidity, but not to retain it
2. The decrease of 20% in ANGLE incentives apparently had a negligible impact on TVL.
3. Current incentives split between the different gauges is not optimal (cf sanFRAX), and the protocol is currently wasting ANGLE tokens.

→ From #1, it seems that using ANGLE emissions to incentivize liquidity over the long-run is a waste of ANGLE. This can be thought about as a two part problem: