# Flatten curation market bonding curve AND steepen Graph Name Service bonding curve

**URL:** <https://forum.thegraph.com/t/flatten-curation-market-bonding-curve-and-steepen-graph-name-service-bonding-curve/2498>\
**Category:** Protocol Economics\
**Tags:** curator\
**Created:** [September 3, 2021, 2:13pm UTC](https://forum.thegraph.com/t/flatten-curation-market-bonding-curve-and-steepen-graph-name-service-bonding-curve/2498 "2021-09-03T14:13:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Brandon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.thegraph.com/brandon/32/1265_2.png) [@Brandon](https://forum.thegraph.com/u/Brandon)\
**Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 4:31am UTC](https://forum.thegraph.com/t/flatten-curation-market-bonding-curve-and-steepen-graph-name-service-bonding-curve/2498/11 "2022-03-11T04:31:43Z")

</div>

> [@DataNexus](#):
>
> This suggestion is adjusting it so that the pitch is determined at the GNS level rather than at the deployment level. Thus after upgrading, ArtBlocks could then go place risk-free signal on V0.0.1 to ensure it had signal and maintained support while indexers are syncing V0.0.2.

@MrStevenStiffler this is exactly right. You can think of nested bonding curves as having a “composed curvature” that is a functional composition of the two constituent bonding curves. By swapping the curvatures in this case, the composed curvature is unaffected.

Note that not all nested bonding curve designs compose in this way. For example in [this proposal](https://forum.thegraph.com/t/gip-0026-principal-protected-bonding-curves/3162/2), it’s only the curvature of the outer curve that determines the “overall” curvature.

> [@SamH5](#):
>
> sushi swap subgraph (i am not signaling it but this a good exemple) with 384k grt used by curator to signal and 150k left but at current point their share are valuated at 240k until no one is selling buying.
> 
> Can you detail a scenario of “financial” impact for curator ?

To close the loop on this, the economics working group decided not to pursue this proposal, for the reasons I believe you are referring to. Ultimately, any Curator that had signaled immediately before the curve flattening would see an immediate unrealized loss. Also, even announcing the flattening of the bonding curve at the subgraph deployment level had the potential to trigger a “run on the bank” at the subgraph deployment level because the incentive would be to exit immediately to lock in the highest price.

The favored solution to avoid some of the harmful dynamics at the subgraph deployment level among the economics working group, at the moment is: [GIP-0025: Principal-Protected Bonding Curves](https://forum.thegraph.com/t/gip-0026-principal-protected-bonding-curves/3162/)

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.thegraph.com/t/flatten-curation-market-bonding-curve-and-steepen-graph-name-service-bonding-curve/2498)._