Katana Fiyat

DeFi Education: Why most incentive programs fail

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>tl;dr - a lot of projects spend a ton of money on mercenary capital and if you don't know this, you can have your yields change dramatically overnight and be in some trouble.</p> <p>Most people farming DeFi incentives look at APY first. I did too. After a couple of years doing this across multiple chains, I've learned that APY tells you almost nothing about whether an incentive program is worth your time and capital. The metric that actually matters is cost-per-TVL</p> <p> <strong>What cost-per-TVL means</strong></p> <p>Cost-per-TVL is simple. Take the total dollar value a protocol spends on incentives over a period and divide it by the TVL those incentives attracted. That ratio tells you how efficiently a protocol is buying its liquidity. A high cost-per-TVL means the protocol is overpaying to attract deposits, which usually means those deposits are mercenary and will leave the second rewards dry up. A low cost-per-TVL means the protocol found a way to attract sticky capital without bleeding out its treasury.</p> <p>Once you start looking at incentive programs through this lens, the pattern becomes obvious. As a depositor, you want to be farming in protocols that fall into the first category, because those are the ones where the base yield and organic activity are strong enough to keep capital around after the incentives end.</p> <p><strong>The programs that failed</strong></p> <p>Berachain's TVL ran up to $3.5B during peak incentive season, which looked incredible at the time. Then the program cooled off and TVL cratered to under $1B (<a href="https://www.turtle.xyz/blog/research/mercenary-capital-problem">source</a>). The DeFi TVL that actually stuck around sits somewhere around $100M today. Think about the cost-per-TVL on that. The protocol spent enormous sums attracting capital that had zero intention of staying, and every dollar spent acquiring those temporary deposits was effectively wasted.</p> <p>Arbitrum's LTIPP had a similar dynamic, just less dramatic. At the peak of the program, yields across Arbitrum DeFi were boosted by roughly 150%, which sounds great if you were farming at the time. But once the program ended, the sustained increase in activity was about 3.5%. All that spend, all that token distribution, and the lasting impact was a rounding error.</p> <p> <strong>A program that worked</strong></p> <p>Now compare that to Katana. Their token launched below initial projection prices, which is the kind of scenario that usually triggers a mass exodus. Farmers dump the token, pull liquidity, and move on. However, Katana held its TVL (currently ~$363M according to defillama). Their incentive campaign runs through Turtle and distribution through Merkl. They structured rewards in a way that aligned depositors with the protocol's long-term health. Katana thought carefully about incentives and distribution, which has a direct impact on whether the capital sticks. Right now, it appears they have the right balance.<br/> (NOTE: Katana has some unique designs for all of DeFi, so just their incentive campaign isn't the only reason the TVL stayed, but it's certainly a contributing factor)</p> <p><strong>What makes the difference</strong></p> <p>Programs that retain TVL tend to share a few traits. They target rewards at specific vaults or LP positions instead of spreading them across everything. They design campaigns with vesting schedules or minimum deposit periods that filter out short-term depositors. And they track performance at the individual deposit level, so they can see which incentive spend is reaching long-term capital and which is getting farmed and dumped.</p> <p>A few platforms in the incentive space, like Merkl and Turtle, track attribution at the deposit level, which gives visibility into whether incentive spend is reaching depositors who stay or depositors who rotate out immediately.</p> <p><strong>How to evaluate this yourself</strong></p> <p>Before you deposit into any incentive program, check how the protocol managed previous campaigns. If this is their second or third round, you have data. Pull up DefiLlama and look at TVL trends around the start and end dates of past incentive periods. Did deposits hold after rewards ended, or did TVL fall off a cliff? If it dropped hard, that tells you the cost-per-TVL was high and the current round will probably play out the same way.</p> <p>For newer protocols without that history, look at how they're structuring the incentives. Are there lockups, vesting schedules, or mechanics that encourage longer deposits? Or is it a straight token handout with no friction on withdrawal? The easier it is to grab rewards and leave, the more likely you're farming alongside capital that will dump on you.</p> <p><strong>Where to learn more</strong></p> <p>I'm a big fan of Turtle and they do a great job educating for DeFi. Their guide on incentive infrastructure (<a href="https://www.turtle.xyz/blog/benchmarks/cost-per-tvl-benchmarks">https://www.turtle.xyz/blog/benchmarks/cost-per-tvl-benchmarks</a>) breaks down the mechanics that separate programs that retain liquidity from programs that just rent it temporarily. If you're trying to build a mental model for evaluating incentive programs before you deposit, it's a good place to start.</p> <p>The yield number on the page is the bait. The incentive design underneath it is what determines whether you're earning real yield or just being handed someone else's exit liquidity. </p> <p>Stay safe, don't get rekt.</p> </div><!-- SC_ON -->   submitted by   <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/TimmyXBT"> /u/TimmyXBT </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1sklthz/defi_education_why_most_incentive_programs_fail/">[link]</a></span>   <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1sklthz/defi_education_why_most_incentive_programs_fail/">[comments]</a></span>