Thanks for your input, everyone.
This is a tricky one. I understand the logic of getting LPLA whitelisted first, and it absolutely should be at some point—it could provide users who wish to generate revenue on their spare LPLA another option to do so outside of the planned lending pool. However, considering LPL is the mainline and more actively traded token, has already established sizable liquidity and volume, and will have greater utility until Chainlink staking is released, I’d say that the clearest path forward would be to first have a LPL whitelisting as the launch pad, with a linkLPLA whitelisting to follow.
If liquidity and volume remain high after April 9 (at which point rewards will be claimable to LPL stakers), I think the notion that there is significant interest in liquidity provision and trading for the LPL token versus staking it for LinkPool rewards would be validated, especially when a liquidity provision based strategy may remain more lucrative than staking LPL while node rewards continue to be relatively low (based on past data) for the time being for the average LPL staker. This could also lay the groundwork for an arbitraging opportunity—perhaps at some point an equilibrium could be reached where revenue from LPing LPL would be roughly equal to the amount earned by staking LPL and claiming node rewards, since those node rewards are proportionally distributed to the amount of LPL staked.
I can certainly see that landscape changing as LPL staking rewards increase, and of course with the launch of LINK staking.
Having a whitelisted LPLA pool first could immediately benefit existing LPL stakers who want to generate some revenue on their LPLA before the lending pool is available, but that’s assuming the interest is there from buyers and traders, and I’m not aware of any trading currently happening for the LPLA token. When the community does decide to pursue a whitelisted status for LPLA, I think some infrastructure (so to speak) would need to be laid. Ideally, there would be at minimum an existing pool on Bancor or Uniswap (as the LPL token currently has) and a CoinGecko/CMC listing.
Even with all other points in favor of LPL over LPLA aside, I would argue Leonardo’s point to those in the LPLA camp; that the better move would be to build that foundation with LPL first so that the LinkPool ecosystem is arguably more accessible and therefore may accrue more social value (and in turn, potential monetary value). Staking LPL will provide LPLA, too, so there’s that aspect to consider from a new user’s perspective.
That all said, perhaps it’s worth waiting to present a proposal until after the April 9 grace period to see what kind of liquidity and volume LPL still has on Bancor. If those factors remain high, I think that would give credence to the idea that there is enough interest in liquidity provision for LPL, which could further strengthen a proposal to whitelist the token.