Remove low value PNG pools

We are coming up on a technical limitation where we can only support ~80 rewarded pools. We currently have 65. There are a few low value pools with less than 200 AVAX (~$10,000) staked

I propose that we remove these low value pools to clear up space for the future pools that we want to add.

Also I am proposing that new pairs only get 1 pool: the AVAX pool at 2x. This way we don’t have these low value pools cluttering the UI and pushing up against our upper limit of 80 pools.

Please leave any questions or comments below.


I’m agree. Is important to focus your mind on the best way. And exclude bad performance.

We really need new UI to see all pool. Actually is not efficient.
The user could use filter and other possibility.

1 Like

makes only sense imo.

Valid point from Leo … I do agree with AvaxGod that we need to fix U/I for pangolin, watching Trader Joe and actually using their interface makes it clear. I know the pangolin team is working on it, but we can move faster.

1 Like

I think we should really reduce the number of pools we give rewards to to increase distribution to other more important pools.

Do we really need YFI, Sushi and Uni. Aren’t they all competitors or projects that don’t add much to Avalanche?

Trader Joe went ahead and took a big chunk of the liquidity with their good allocations on about half as many pools. Their AVAX/WETH and Stablecoins pools have unbeatable APY if we are that diversified. That’s a lot of fees on volume lost. If anyone did more research on the matter feel free to share your thoughts.

1 Like

Good idea. Agreed. Also PNG pools never really made much sense to me. Instead of creating many PNG pools with low reward multipliers we can just pump up the AVAX-PNG reward multiplier.


Right, but there are many people swing trade or hold YFI, SUSHI, and UNI on Avalanche. So having some liquidity of those is beneficial. Otherwise you give those people no option other than to use Ethereum to play with those tokens.

Yeah they actually have decent volume. Two pairs seems excessive though so we’ll stick with AVAX pairs going forward

1 Like

I agree, and this is correct and democratic, you can not delete pools with any cost, the system risks losing potentially cool projects from the opposite