[FIP - 292] Implement ragequit function for VST-FRAX Gauge locker with 0 fee


Vesta core team


Implement VST-FRAX Gauge ragequit function with 0 withdrawal fee.

Background and Motivation

The Vesta-Frax VST-FRAX pool was a popular stable pool on Arbitrum, contributing to liquidity provision and stablecoin swaps. However, the protocol is set to wind down in Oct 17 2023 as seen here.

In light of these developments, this proposal seeks to introduce a “ragequit” mechanism to the VST-FRAX Gauge on Arbitrum, allowing lockers to exit the pool without a penalty. This feature will offer liquidity providers an organized route to withdraw their assets from the pool, considering the evolving context driven by sunset of Vesta protocol.

Why 0 fee?

Prior wind down efforts such as this implemented the rage quit with a 20% withdrawal fee. The VST-FRAX pool should not wind down with the same amount of fee because this is not merely a wind down of the pool structure, but rather this is a wind down of the asset in the pool.

Vesta’s wind down will decrease the supply of the VST stablecoin to 0. Starting on Oct 17, 2023, a PSM with USDC will be opened and redemption will be enabled. The PSM will allow users to swap VST for USDC on a 1:1 basis. Redemption will allow any third party users to close anyone’s vault position in Vesta. By enabling lockers to withdraw, they will be able to also participate in the redemption process, helping VST fully wind down instead of leaving potentially substantial amount of residual VST in the pool.

Furthermore, early lockers locked into the pool because of high amount of emission enabled by Tetranode’s vote. Given the protocol wind down, Tetra is shifting his vote elsewhere, decreasing the pool’s emission to 0. By adding a withdrawal fee, current lockers who entered with the expectation of high emission will be left with 0 reward for the rest of the lock duration, decreasing the lockers’ faith in Frax’s gauge system. Furthermore, Tetranode will likely move the reward to a new gauge, which people can move into and lock again. Asking for a high withdrawal fee will discourage people from locking in new gauges in the future.

Pool Details

LP Token: 0x59bf0545fca0e5ad48e13da269facd2e8c886ba4
Gauge: 0x127963a74c07f72d862f2bdc225226c3251bd117


• For: Implement the ragequit function with no fee.
• Against: Do Nothing


Hi Mikey - what will happen if the pool is not unlocked? Would it just mean LPs would only just have to wait to withdraw until the lock expires? thanks


How does this come to vote?

1 Like

This will be posted on snapshot after 3-5 Days here, with request of proposal author.


I agree with this Proposal as written. This isn’t a “rage-quit” scenario. This is a “hey man this LP asset is going to disappear soon, we gotta get out-quit”. I don’t think there should be a penalty in this instance due to the nature of the unwind.


This proposal is up for voting here: Snapshot


Would also like to know if there is a time limit or if redemptions are immutable and always open.

The other “rage” quit terms were also for protocol shutdowns (saddle and musd) so I dont see exactly what the difference is here. specially if redemptions are available after user lock terms have expired.

Also just pretty amazing how previous proposals were 20% and then you say

and then just yolo a 0% proposal lol.

  • Agree to give liquidity for X years
  • Want to break lock agreement with 0 cost

I could easily see discussions on what the fee should be (supported by data).


Then the $2.3m lockers would have 0 yield as Tetranode moves his vote elsewhere, and wait for their stake to unlock eventually.

1 Like

Hi C2tP!

Redemption specification is laid out here. Redemption will be enabled in 6 months and then would likely conclude in 12 months.

Given that there’s a USDC PSM, the pool will continue to exist without going into severe imbalance.

20% was not a number that I came up with. It came from the Frax team. 7% is indeed something I mentioned before but it came from a unverified source that I failed to find again.

I understand that the liquidity was given initially with the expectation of locking but this event is the full wind down of one of the assets, and this event is certainly not what people expected when they first locked liquidity in.

For the record, I’m advocating for the users of Vesta and Frax. These are your lockers who could further provide liquidity in other pools, but now they will be stuck in a 0% pool for another long while. I’m not even a locker myself - I just believe that it’s unfair for people to not get an exit given that yield is now going to 0 due to an event that was not in their control.

it would be great if you could counter and suggest solid proposals.

1 Like

so this is the final deal? like its hard to tell just from the link as its just a forum post with a few votes on it? was this actually voted for and in place now?
So are you saying people might incur a fee if they cant exit their LP position? why is there a fee and not just let people return at their own time? who gets the fee? This PSM will always be available?

This kind of shows what little work you put into making this proposal.

You’re making it sound like this is a unique situation but others have shutdown due to protocol sunsetting as well.

Not sure why Tetranode’s weighting should have anything to do with this topic. the gauge is still live and anyone can still put weight on it. (the gauge is functioning the same as it did from the start)

Seeing how you are a team member of Vesta, its pretty concerning how lazily this proposal was put together.


It’s quite sad to see this proposal being rejected like this, arguing that it should be 20% flat in any case.

At 20% fee most LP will end up having to pay for providing liquidity, and frankly Vesta sunsetting is out of the control of LPs. I literally feel taken hostage by Frax.

1 Like

Not really. VST will worth 0 next year.

If you don’t unlock, your LP value goes to zero.

So you have no choice but to exit LP.

1 Like

And in what universe is it in Frax’s interest to keep subsidizing liquidity on a dead protocol?

If they can’t exit their position then people who committed to a promised boosted lock will receive 0 rewards for a promised boosted LP. As a reminder the maximum lock for max boost is 3 YEARS which could have been initiated at any time up to now. If this was the case for me I would never lock liquidity with Frax again. Is this the message we want to send?

Nothing constructive from this kind of absolute bs, especially after the previous quote shows you don’t understand the situation yourself. Also, why would you expect a member of Vesta to make a proposal against Vesta user interest?
Here users locked liquidity. The protocol is shutting down so users respected all their obligations and have EVERY RIGHT to the rewards they earned, however, it doesn’t make sense for Frax to keep incentivizing a pool for a dead asset.

Please share an example when stating such things. Give us a basis.


I would like to attempt again to help Vesta and Frax users safely exit their LP positions without being penalized unfairly.

@C2tP-C2tP @0xChuckbeard Thank you all for participating in this conversation. Now I’d like to solicit methods on how to best calculate the withdraw fee. Do you have any suggested methods to conduct the calculation?


@mikey_vesta would be good to hear a proposal from you taking into account the proposals that have succeeded in the past. It would be good if you explain why Vesta protocol cannot just leave a 1:1 USDC redemption mechanism for these holders and a long term bribe to support apr - Vesta has a massive treasury


If previous proposals were at 20% and this is also the level the Frax team suggested, I’d suggest putting a new proposal in now at 20%? This obviously sucks but it would be good to get a resolution to this. Perhaps this 20% (or half of it) should also be paid out of Vestas treasury??


cc @Wood Vesta’s treasury has been fully redeemed. 1:1 USDC redemption is also already live. But people are asking for a early out anyway.


Thanks for clarifying. In terms of an early out, 20% isn’t ideal but if that’s what it takes, so be it.


Seems like 20% is the expected fee from what I’ve read from others. Probably best to try again with that and see how it goes.


Just wanted to bump this up to see if there have been any other ideas.

1 Like