# Bonding Curve on Query Fees

**URL:** <https://forum.thegraph.com/t/bonding-curve-on-query-fees/2293>\
**Category:** Research & Development\
**Created:** [July 24, 2021, 9:23pm UTC](https://forum.thegraph.com/t/bonding-curve-on-query-fees/2293 "2021-07-24T21:23:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jona](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.thegraph.com/jona/32/1283_2.png) [@jona](https://forum.thegraph.com/u/jona)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2021, 9:23pm UTC](https://forum.thegraph.com/t/bonding-curve-on-query-fees/2293/1 "2021-07-24T21:23:32Z")

</div>

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

Solution

- 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 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DataNexus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.thegraph.com/datanexus/32/1830_2.png) [@DataNexus](https://forum.thegraph.com/u/DataNexus)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2021, 9:36pm UTC](https://forum.thegraph.com/t/bonding-curve-on-query-fees/2293/2 "2021-07-24T21:36:03Z")

</div>

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.