Bonding Curve on Query Fees

The bonding curve from what I’ve been told is to incentivize bootstrapping.

I think the bonding curve causes the following issues:

  • Race to signal first
  • Race to unsignal before every one else unsignals
  • Fluctuating signals based on profit-chasing

These pressures go against what curation is about:

  • Collaboration with Subgraph developers
  • Collaboration with indexers on possible issues with the subgraph
  • Taking the time to research through a subgraph


  • Signal counts 1:1 of GRT
  • As signal grows, your “share” goes up(according to the bonding curve) but it only counts towards the query fees you will gain.
  • When you unsignal your GRT, you get back 1:1 what you put + any query fees you earned

This applies the bonding curve to query fee’s, so your incentive to signal early is that you will receive a larger portion of the query fee’s.

Would love feedback, thoughts, suggestions, counter arguments.

Thanks :slight_smile:

1 Like

The issue I foresee with this is it does not incentivize enough curators to be proactive in nature. There’s a bit of a chicken or the egg game at play here. A curator is unlikely to reallocate signal to a new subgraph if their positions are currently producing good query fees in the risk attempt that this new one will be better.

Currently the bonding curve : query fee incentives are very tipped in one direction. I believe we need to balance this, but until we have a bit more data we can’t produce the optimum correction amount or route.

Edit: Also I don’t think query fees alone (within the current incentives) would make it cost efficient to curate.