Incentives Optimization
Initial results from our research into keeping Osmosis liquidity healthy while minimizing the cost of incentives.
Illustrative demo data · generated in the browser, not live chain data
Incentives per week
$754.76K
Liquidity in studied pools
$20.43M
Likely over-incentivized
7
Liquidity shows diminishing returns
Across pools, liquidity grows roughly with the square root of incentive spend. Doubling incentives buys far less than double the depth.
Organic liquidity does the heavy lifting
Most TVL in the major pools would remain without incentives. Spend is best targeted where it moves the needle — newer and long-tail pairs.
Fee coverage is the health metric
Pools whose weekly swap fees cover a large share of their incentives are self-sustaining. Low-coverage pools are candidates for a gradual taper.
Incentives vs liquidity
Each dot is a pool (log scales). Pools on the upper left get the most liquidity per incentive dollar.
Budget simulator
Projected aggregate liquidity for a given weekly incentive budget, using the fitted diminishing-returns curve.
$754.76K
100% of today’s spend
- Projected liquidity
- $20.43M
- Marginal $ per $1
- 8
Pool efficiency
Fee coverage = weekly swap fees ÷ weekly incentives. Sorted from least to most efficient.
| #1246DYDX/OSMO | $280.03K | $2.2M | $279.28K | 8 | 2.1% |
| #584SCRT/OSMO | $29.35K | $391.93K | $271.29K | 13 | 19.4% |
| #573BTSG/OSMO | $84.11K | $1.12M | $431.51K | 13 | 10.8% |
| #1408NTRN/OSMO | $26.13K | $354.76K | $338.9K | 14 | 27.2% |
| #497JUNO/OSMO | $70.41K | $1.15M | $333.88K | 16 | 10.0% |
| #42REGEN/OSMO | $15.11K | $279.94K | $198.44K | 19 | 27.6% |
| #604STARS/OSMO | $48.72K | $1.15M | $1.35M | 24 | 58.4% |
| #3AKT/OSMO | $24.68K | $636.54K | $53.62K | 26 | 4.6% |
| #704WETH/OSMO | $20.88K | $606.99K | $719.03K | 29 | 72.3% |
| #15XPRT/OSMO | $13.5K | $523.2K | $747.12K | 39 | 116.2% |
1–10 of 22