Referral Staking Program: Review, Feedback & Improvements (Cycle 1)

General
1

We’re 2 weeks into Cycle 1 of the Referral Staking Program.

Here’s where we stand at the moment:

  • 69M staked MET
  • 2000 referral codes linked (& enjoying bonus fees)
  • ~300K in estimated cycle rewards

We’ve made great progress with the program so far, and over the past few days we’ve been getting a lot of valuable feedback from the community.

For more context on the Referral Staking Program, here are some posts from the community that dive into through them in detail:

  1. Razzaer on X: "So @MeteoraAG just gave $MET its first real utility: Referral Staking. I broke down exactly where your LP fees go, what staking actually pays, and the traps people are already falling into. Then the market proved the whole thesis right within a day. 🧵 https://t.co/2dkP6qYvk0" / X
  2. Mario on X: "If you share a referral code - or use someone else's - this 35-second video is the fastest way to understand what you're actually earning. You get 8% of protocol fees. Your referrals split 2%. But there's a cap, and it's set by staked MET. Full article in the replies👇 https://t.co/hYEtFhU9N4" / X
  3. Armstrong on X: "Already LPing on @MeteoraAG? You might be leaving extra rewards on the table. Meteora Referral Staking is now live, giving LPs a new way to earn by bringing more liquidity into the ecosystem. In this guide, I’ll show you how to create your own code, and start earning up to 8% of protocol fees from the LPs you onboard. Start Here: https://t.co/WQBkp69iCj Turn your network into another reward stream. @MetNaija @met_lparmy" / X
  4. Tuuxx on X: "https://t.co/x0ixgfdOdJ" / X

In this post I’ll go through:

  • 3 most common pieces of feedback
  • Some proposed improvements
  • A call for ideas towards improving Referral Staking

Feedback 1: Request for the ability to share pool links with referral codes

What we’re hearing

Currently, sharing and linking a referral code is only available via the Referral Staking page. However, a lot of the alpha calls between members of the LP Army happens when they want to share links to new pools for others to check out.

Our Next Steps

We’re now working on making it possible for you to share a pool link which carries your unique referral code, so whoever visits Meteora via your link immediately sees a popup to apply your referral code before they LP.

This saves the extra step of entering the Referral Staking page first. Instead, you will be able to refer new users while sharing the link to the pools you believe in and already LP in. If you are able to share good runners, your Referred Users get to print fees, and as a Referrer you get to earn rewards from them as well.

Feedback 2: Lack of information on your earnings cap as a Referred User

What we’re hearing

Referred Users don’t know how close they are to their max reward cap, since it is dependent on the amount of MET staked by their Referrer, which is not displayed publicly to other users.

Our Next Steps

We’re still reviewing how we can give Referred Users an estimation of their max reward “tier” or “range”, without disclosing the exact USDC number or the MET staked by their Referrer.

The reason why we currently do not disclose the exact USDC number is because that would indirectly reflect the amount of MET staked by the Referrer, and in turn the Referrer’s associated wallet address. And it is important to respect users’ privacy.

The balance between visibility vs. privacy is an important discussion that we’d like to have with the community before we ship any changes on this topic.

Questions for discussion:

  • Would you want more visibility into your Referrer and/or Referred Users, if it means your on-chain wallet address information will become visible to everyone?

  • What information are you willing to share with the public (as a Referrer OR as a Referred User), and what information should be kept confidential?

Feedback 3: Unclear reward mechanics for Referred Users

What we’re hearing

Currently, after linking a Referral Code, you become a Referred User, and you earn a share of 2% of protocol fees from your liquidity positions, on top of your own LP fees.

However, the maximum dollar value you can earn as a Referred User depends on your pro rata share of the combined reward cap for all Referred Users linked to your Referrer. This combined reward cap is 20% of your Referrer’s Earnings Cap and your individual share is based on the fees you generate relative to other Referred Users.

This explains much of the fluctuating numbers you see in your reward breakdown. We have received feedback that this design is overly complex, and gives rise to a ‘PvP’ environment where Referred Users have to aggressively compete among themselves for a higher share of rewards.

Our Next Steps

We’re considering to update the reward mechanism for Referred Users in a way that mitigates against this ‘PvP’ scenario within the same Referrer network.

Current → All Referred Users compete for a pro rata share of 20% of Referrer’s Earnings Cap based on eligible fees they generate (the remaining 80% is given to the Referrer). As such, each Referred User has a different individual maximum reward cap.

Proposed → All Referred Users will have the exact same maximum reward cap each, which is 25% of the Referrer’s Earnings Cap. For example, if the Referrer stakes 1000 MET, his Earnings Cap is $100, and each and every single one of the Referred Users under that same Referrer has a maximum reward cap of 25% of $100 = $25. This cap remains fixed for all Referred Users unless there are changes to their Referrer’s staked MET amount.

This new design reduces the amount of fluctuation in your own rewards, and also avoids a competitive environment between Referred Users under the same Referrer.

Call for Ideas

Referral Staking is our first initiative that ties product usage and community growth together with MET utility. Staking MET through this 3-month campaign gives you direct access to the success of the DLMM via protocol fees.

This was a highly requested incentive model, but staking also opens up many other opportunities for MET holders, so we want to hear more ideas from all of you!

Questions for discussion:

  • What are some other ways we can utilize MET Staking to benefit our LPs, product usage, token holders, and the broader Meteora ecosystem?

  • How can we use MET to align incentives and 10x the LP Army?

Let me know your thoughts below, and let’s work out the next phase of Referral Staking improvements together. We’ll schedule a community call in the coming days to run through your feedback alongside other topics.

4 Likes
2

Hi Miir,

Thanks for everything Meteora is doing. This referral program is really awesome and give a good reason to individuals and tools to keep supporting Meteora.

Feedback 1
This is a highly requested feature ! Can’t wait to have it

Feedback 2
I guess a poll should be made. If you have referrals under you, I guess you know that you have to use a public wallet. So I’m voting to just have everything public. Maybe that would be the first governance vote for MET stakers ? :grin:

Feedback 3
The proposed solution is great, but isn’t it too generous ? The whole point is to make the referrer stake more MET. By having individual caps, a lot of those caps won’t be used, and only the biggest whale in the referred users will be affected. I think the current system is great. If the referrer doesn’t want to lose his referrals, he has to stake more MET. It’s self healing, as the biggest swimmer in the pool, if they get capped, they will move to another referrer, so that will leave more space to the other ones next cycle

Good luck making everyone happy haha !

3 Likes
3

A few ideas building on the feedback points above:

1. Per-referred-user performance visibility

It’d be great to see a breakdown of fees generated per individual referred user, not just aggregate numbers. Some referrers may want to share part of their earnings back with the users who used their code — essentially a cashback mechanism. Right now there’s no way to track or act on that at the individual level.

2. Per-pool referral codes (building on Feedback 1)

The pool-link idea is great, but I’d take it further: per-pool referral codes. This would add a lot of value for regional communities specifically. Not everyone sharing alpha is active on X or has a large following — a lot of that activity happens in Discord groups (this is common in @MeteoraIDN, for example), where someone shares a specific pair/pool rather than a general referral link. Per-pool codes would let that kind of grassroots sharing get properly attributed and rewarded.

3. Split attribution between “legacy” and “pool” referrers

If per-pool codes exist, there should be a way to split rewards between two referrers. Example: User A originally used referrer YUNUS’s code because YUNUS onboarded them from the start, so they want to keep supporting that relationship. Later, User A finds a specific pool through referrer C’s shared link and wants to credit C too. Rather than forcing a choice, reward attribution could be split — part to the “legacy” referrer (who onboarded), part to the “pool” referrer (who surfaced the specific opportunity).

2 Likes
4

am down for public wallet miir. this is the reason why we use other reff as a fans / reffered. also can you increase of instead of 2% reffered to 5% or 10% please. so more buying power more often on met. thanks

1 Like
5

First of all, I really like the direction the Referral Staking Program is taking. Here are my thoughts after using it over the past couple of weeks:

1. Privacy should be optional

I’d love to see more visibility into the referral network, but only as an opt-in feature.

Some creators want to showcase the communities they’ve built, compete on leaderboards, and demonstrate the impact they’re having on the ecosystem. Others prefer complete privacy.

Giving users the choice through a simple privacy toggle feels like the best balance between transparency and anonymity.

2. I’d be careful with the proposed 25% reward cap model

I understand the goal of removing the PvP between referred users, and I agree the current system can feel confusing.

However, I’d be careful about giving every referred user the exact same reward cap.

Part of the beauty of the current system is that it rewards referrers who onboard active LPs rather than simply accumulating referrals.

With a fixed cap for everyone, it may become more attractive to collect a large number of passive referrals instead of building an engaged, high-quality LP community.

I’d rather see a simpler reward formula than completely removing the performance component.

3. Temporary Pool Referrals

One feature I’d absolutely love to see is temporary, pool-specific referral links.

Imagine someone discovers a great LP opportunity and shares that specific pool on Discord or X.

If another user joins that pool through the shared link, a portion of the referral rewards generated by that pool would go to the original alpha caller.

I think this would:

  • Reward people who actively research and discover quality opportunities.
  • Incentivize high-quality alpha
  • Encourage LPs to spend more time hunting for great pools instead of waiting for others to post them.
  • Create a healthier content ecosystem where good research is directly rewarded.

In my opinion, this would reduce laziness across the LP Army and motivate more members to contribute valuable alpha instead of simply consuming it.

GFT

1 Like
6

My broader view is that, in its current form, the referral component provides limited incremental value to LPs and contributes relatively little to MET utility. The staking component, on the other hand, appears to have had a much more meaningful impact on MET utility.

For referred LPs, the additional reward amounts to less than a 1% increase over the fees they would already earn from their positions. For a well-executed LP strategy, this is economically marginal and is unlikely to materially influence an LP’s decision-making.

The current data appears to point in the same direction. If the staking APR is roughly three times the referral APR, then—under the simplifying assumption that referred and non-referred LPs generate similar amounts of fees—only around one-third of eligible DLMM fee activity may currently be linked to referral codes.

The current earnings-cap structure also appears relatively easy to saturate. Assuming that DLMM generates $500,000 in total fees per day and that the combined referral allocation represents approximately 1% of those fees, the total referral rewards generated over a 30-day cycle would be $150,000.

At the current earnings-cap ratio of $0.10 per staked MET, only 1.5m MET would be required to provide enough aggregate cap capacity for the entire amount:

$500,000 × 30 × 1% ÷ $0.10 = 1.5m MET

If only around one-third of eligible DLMM fee activity is currently associated with referral codes, the actual amount of MET required to absorb the referral rewards would be even lower. This suggests that, under the current design, the referral component may not create particularly strong or scalable demand for MET staking.

I would therefore suggest turning both staking and referrals into ongoing, long-term programs rather than limiting them to a three-month campaign. Users could be given a choice of different staking or lock-up periods, with stronger incentives for longer commitments.

For example, longer-term stakers could receive:

  • a higher referral reward rate, potentially above the current 8%; and

  • a larger or boosted share of staking rewards through a duration-weighted mechanism, such as a veMET-style model.

A tiered referral structure could also be introduced based on the amount of MET staked, allowing larger MET stakers to unlock progressively higher referral reward rates.

This would create a stronger relationship between the amount and duration of MET staked, the rewards users can earn, and the long-term utility of MET.

3 Likes
7

Thanks for the kind words Quin!

Feedback 2 is valid. Ideally we find a resolution that’s not binary (i.e. majority agree on full visibility/full privacy and the other half gets stuck with the outcome they voted against). I’d love to hear more unique ideas that could tie some degree of both.

On Feedback 3, to clarify: currently the biggest swimmer in the pool benefits the most and lives little for the rest (i.e the ‘PvP environment’ that a lot of Referred Users aren’t big fans of). Agree that this proposed solution comes with the trade-off on Referrers staking more MET, in exchange for less fluctuations and less competition for Referred Users. Appreciate your take on this.

8

Noted on the feedback:

  • The cashback mechanism is a great argument for full visibility on referrals
  • Per-pool codes are very interesting and have been highly requested by many. It’s an entirely separate reward design (as you’ve broken down in point 3), but we’re definitely looking into it
9

Appreciate the input!

10

Thank you for the feedback Swanny!

  1. Definitely agree that there should be some sort of middle ground. I’ve been simulating the opt-in scenario, the data may feel incomplete for some Referrers, but it feels a step closer to an ideal solution

  2. I would argue the opposite actually: this proposed reward formula was designed to be simpler than the current (no competition + no big fluctuations if new Referred Users join), and both mechanisms reward onboarding active LPs in the same manner (under rewards as a Referrer).

  3. Noted on the feedback - this was heavily requested but involves a separate reward design. Will be looking into it with the team

11

I think you’re possibly leaving incentive on the table with the current structure.

My suggestion: tier the staking reward % by stake size, and pair it with Meteora-branded recognition. For example:

Spark Staker — 200–5,000 MET → 8%

Asteroid Staker — 5,000–25,000 MET → 10%

Meteor Staker — 25,000+ MET → 12%

People who work with the protocol daily are willing to stake more but they just need a visible reason to size up. Tiers give a clear target to climb toward much like a video game, which is win-win: more MET staked for the protocol, better rates for committed users.

The branding could be as effective as the rate, and at zero extra cost to the protocol. Like the LP Army, tier titles give stakers social recognition beyond USDC rewards, a Meteor Staker badge on your referral profile, your PnL page when you post wins online. Something people will actually want to show off, and it markets the program for free on X/Discord/Telegram, could also send out some cool merch like Shirts for people to wear in videos.

1 Like
12

I’m very much against making the wallet public. It could just lead to more copy trading. If it’s an option, OK fine and I see the use for regionals but don’t force people into public. Especially if they are already in and participated knowing it’s currently private.

For pool referrals, instead of it just being another funnel into following someone, I think it would be better if the person who referred the pool and someone joins the pool using that referral, they are getting a slice of the fees from that specific pool, not just locking in the wallet to one overall.

So if someone makes a good alpha call, it benefits them by others joining in from that ref link for just that one pool.

3 Likes
13

How about some kind of API for referrals where if I have a private group on TG or discord, we can connect to the API to confirm if someone uses my referral and then let them into the group.

So we don’t need to know the wallet address.

1 Like