Aquafarmer Farming Utility

Concept: Introduce additional utility to Aquafarmers in the form of creating an integrated smart contract marketplace on Liqwid that allows the NFT’s owner to offer/lend out their farmer to third parties, in exchange for a share of the bonus APY from the wallet(s) where it is applied.


  1. Smart contract: allows either a single wallet or multiple wallets (if possible) to interact.
    > NFT is submitted to contract by owner with custom parameters (fee / time locked)
    > One or more wallets holding staked LQ can request access (granted by owner)
    *Alternatively the LQ is deposited within an account in the contract wallet.

  2. Farmers Market: Aquafarmer contract marketplace integrated into Liqwid’s UI.
    > Owners create listings by submitting their NFT to a contract and setting conditions.
    > Contracts can be queried/sorted by: Rarity Tier, Fee Rate, Time Locked
    > Users select a desired available contract (Aquafarmer) and await approval/denial.


  • Rarity tier could determine how many “farms” (wallets staking LQ) each Aquafarmer contract manages:
    i.e. Common (1), Rare (2), Super Rare (3), Legendary (4)

  • Fee rate could either be variable and left entirely to the owner, required to fall within a pre-determined range, or tied to rarity tier.

Fee Rate = % of bonus APR sent to contract owner.
i.e. User has their farm managed by a Legendary (10%) farmer. Fee rate is set to 2%. Contract owner accrues 20% of the additional LQ rewards earned from the bonus APR.

Time Locked = Amount of time that the Aquafarmer will remain locked in contract.
Allows users interested in long term staking, who don’t wish to purchase a farmer outright, to find a long-term contract to utilize if they are pursuing 6mo/12mo staking APY bonuses.

Value Proposition / Protocol Benefits:

  1. Increases Aquafarmer utility, allowing each NFT to be a potential revenue stream.

  2. Potentially impacts NFT prices, increasing DAO/protocol royalties from secondary market sales.

  3. Could be constructed to return a small % of the farming fees to the protocol itself to be used for increasing POL, building LQ holdings for the DAO, funding development, etc.


I’m not familiar with exactly how the AF bonus is constructed, other than we need to use single address mode wallets, and retain the farmer within the staked wallet. I’m wondering if it would be possible to create a workaround that allows for the smart contract to have 1 wallet, with multiple accounts that each receive the bonus. People then applying/requesting would be using their own private wallet to interact (deposit/withdraw LQ) to their corresponding assigned Account within the contract wallet, so that we could achieve the 1-4 farms per Aquafarmer aspect. Or if there is another way entirely to achieve that.

If none of that is feasible, I think this could still be implemented in a “one farm per farmer” manner with fee rate being the primary impact of tier instead of farm quantity.


I support this proposal, and if feasible believe it would result in a tangible boost to the value offering of the NFTs.

Existing holders are not negatively impacted because this change would likely result in increased demand in AFs while now crwating an incentives foe curent whales to continue holding.

Im concious that there will be largw holders currently in the red that will would sell if price climbs back to being in profit, this change should have the effect of reducing that impact.

I look forward ro hearing if this is feasible from a technical perspective from a member of the team

1 Like

Unfortunately the concept presented in this temperature check isn’t feasible as of now, since Aquafarmer boosting uses identification by public key hash for ownership.

But it is feasible in general? Just not with the way the bonus is conferred currently? What about the last comment in the summary about only having 1 farm per farmer? In that situation you have 1 wallet in contract, and could have people submit their LQ to that contract wallet. Then LQ+farmer are in the same single address contract.

Would it be a significant amount of work to change the way the bonus APY is applied? What kind of cost/timeframe would that incur?

What if we just went the V1 route of doing 1 farm per farmer, throwing up the basic framework of the Farmers Market/functionality. Then we have something to build off of for when Agora is updated and the multi-farm aspect becomes more feasible.