All DAO Proposals should be considered deeply and discussed within the community prior to placing your vote blindly

SPARTA Supply Inflation

Tokens being minted into existence increase the total supply and therefore in theory dilutes the value of each token that was in existence prior to the event. If for instance the tokens were minted as part of the prior agreed token distribution program (which BurnForSparta & Bond are both parts of) or the other elements of the supply schedule (emissions from base & the vault incentive flow). Then in theory; the said inflation should already be priced in.

Where it gets swirly is if variables are changed to increase the inflation to be higher than previously discussed, however in the scope of DAO proposals, all negative effects of inflation should be weighed up against the other positive aspects brought on by each proposal. For instance, if the minted SPARTA will provide more utility to the SPARTA token, then it could counter the inflation event into one which results in an increased short or long-term gain for all token holders and peers in the ecosystem.


A new bond allocation will immediately be minted into the total supply, but will not enter the circulating supply until a user bonds them into a liquidity pool. Some would even argue (whilst not correct technically; still correct from a common-sense viewpoint) they never really enter the circulating supply from a dump perspective until the LP tokens are vested back to the user and able to be redeemed for the underlying liquidity and disposed of. Because these LP tokens are vested back linearly and they are in a form that has yield-utility; there should be no sudden dump event caused by a Bond allocation being released. The SPARTA available to mint through Bond allocations is limited at the token distribution amount (no more than 50% of the max supply)

Whilst it is true that minting 2.5M SPARTA will cause some inflation; take care to consider all aspects (see below) before writing off this proposal as 'bad'


Flipping the emissions 'off' will cease the SPARTA emissions being fed into the RESERVE daily. This will obviously begin a drain of the RESERVE balance via harvests through the Vaults and dividends. This should only be considered once the internal revenue generation in pools is self-sustainable in providing incentives for liquidity providers from activity in the liquidity pools

The emissions schedule is set to take 30+ years to get within close percentages of the max supply anyway. There may however be times where it makes sense to turn off emissions in the lead up to a new contract upgrade or some other protocol-level change.


This was always designed to be in the 30-era range to represent a full month taken to drain the RESERVE (if emissions are turned off and the RESERVE is not re-filling). Ideally, this should stay up in the 30+ eras range to ensure a sustainable non-yield-farm approach to Spartan Protocol incentives

ErasToEarn set at 30 ensures the RESERVE has a sustained level of SPARTA over the long-term based on all initially-intended variables/emissions


Performing a grant to a Spartan will result in SPARTA being taken from the already-minted but not-yet-circulating supply held in the RESERVE. So this will not result in additional SPARTA being minted but rather released to a user who theoretically has the best intentions of the ecosystem in mind if they stand a chance in having the majority of the DAO agree in providing them with a grant.



Deeper Pools & Increased Swap Utility

Creating deeper pools should always be the #1 goal with incentives within the Spartan Protocol ecosystem. 'Bond' is a very attractive opportunity for good actors to bolster a larger position and drive more outside-assets into the liquidity pools; increasing the TVL (total value locked). Deeper pools create much higher swap utility due to the exponentially reduced swap fees. Aggregators like 1Inch that hook into a lot of AMMs are then able to leverage the much better swap rate, placing the Spartan pools up the top and driving a lot more swap activity through the pools.

More swap activity = more revenue for the liquidity providers which ultimately leads to increased demand to provide liquidity due to the attractive yield. A self-feeding loop that requires a little help to get bootstrapped (the Bond program)

Longer-term Liquidity

More liquidity 'stay' in a pool - due to the bond program locking in the user's liquidity over 6 months; the liquidity in those pools tend to stay over the longer-term and grow stronger hands of the liquidity providers, especially if the gains are analysed and deemed lucrative by the LPer

More DAOVault Weight

With that increased depth comes increased weight in the DAOVault - this means the harvest rewards and DAO propsal votes will be shared with these new bonders too. If you want your fellow DAO members to be from a particular asset-alignment or *not* to be from another then make sure you throw your weight behind proposals you agree with and make your argument in the community against any you do not agree with. If the Spartans vote through a low-utility asset we might see some DAO-weight-takeover from the teams who might have the power to inflate that asset. Always consider this!