Great post @8bitporkchop, happy to give my input, and love to see it going through the entire governance process. Agree that Uni incentive program might be too early at this stage, and definitely interested in exploring the smart treasury.
About pool composition, I’d concur with @ETM612 and prefer stablecoin with most fees (and evaluate at the end of the gov process for this proposal), and then move to multi-asset composition. On weights, it really depends on the goal you want to give to the pool.
Adding other assets (eg wBTC) generally think we would improve pool’s efficiency. Afaik, it should be factored into IL depending on weights, but would contribute to liquidity.
About swapping/converting fees in the treasury to a single asset/stablecoins, seems more effective but I think there are some costs to consider if you have to swap every time you need to swap-n-forward fees to treasury? @william what do you think?
Still not fully convinced on pool’s weights proportion – @8bitporkchop can you expand a bit more on the rationale behind the 90/10 IDLE/ETH (or IDLE/stablecoin)? You generally have a lower IL magnitude if you set a lower % to non-stable assets. This article might help support here.
Re fees @8bitporkchop @unicorn we’ll be doing more research/thinking on that, but we should be able to relatively quickly iterate on it along time, as it shouldn’t require a code change (only using Balancer interface).
Next steps would be better to define the scope of this implementation, working team, and grant parameters. Further steps are better defined here and here.