veTokenomics is an economic model where tokens are locked for extended periods in exchange for voting power, a share of protocol revenue, and control over emission distribution. First implemented by Curve Finance in 2020, the model has become the standard for DeFi protocols that generate fee revenue.
Why the ve-Model Exists
Standard governance tokens suffer from three problems:
- Short-term incentives. A holder can vote for a self-serving proposal and immediately sell, bearing no consequences
- Voter apathy. With typical turnout of 3–5%, a small group makes all the decisions
- Vote markets. Flash loan attacks and vote rental markets allow buying influence without long-term commitment
The ve-model addresses these problems through a commitment device: voting power is proportional to lock duration, not just token quantity.
Vote Escrow Mechanics
Lock Formula
When locking tokens, a user receives ve-tokens. The amount depends on both the quantity locked and the lock duration:
- veToken — voting token balance
- Token — locked tokens
- t_lock — chosen lock duration
- t_max — maximum lock duration (e.g., 4 years)
Example for Curve with t_max = 4 years:
| Lock duration | 1,000 CRV → veCRV |
|---|---|
| 4 years | 1,000 veCRV (100%) |
| 2 years | 500 veCRV (50%) |
| 1 year | 250 veCRV (25%) |
| 6 months | 125 veCRV (12.5%) |
Voting Power Decay
A key feature of the ve-model is linear decay. Voting power doesn’t remain constant — it decreases over time to zero at the moment of unlock:
- veToken(t) — voting power at time t
- t_remaining — time remaining until unlock
- Voting power decreases every week (in Curve — every Thursday, epoch boundary)
Example: a user locks 1,000 CRV for 4 years.
| Point in time | t_remaining | veToken |
|---|---|---|
| Lock day | 4 years | 1,000 |
| After 1 year | 3 years | 750 |
| After 2 years | 2 years | 500 |
| After 3 years | 1 year | 250 |
| Unlock | 0 | 0 |
Decay creates an economic incentive to relock: to maintain voting power and revenue share, the holder must extend the lock duration.
Three Pillars of ve-Economics
The ve-model unites three mechanisms into a single economic structure:
1. Lock — Supply Reduction
Locking tokens for extended periods removes them from circulation. When a high percentage of tokens are locked (>50%), the effect on supply is significant.
- Circulating_supply — tokens available for trading
- With 60% locked in ve, only 40% of supply creates sell pressure
Curve: as of late 2025, roughly 50% of all CRV is locked in veCRV. The average lock duration exceeds 3.5 years — though this figure is skewed upward by liquid lockers (Convex, Stake DAO) that automatically lock for the maximum 4 years. This radically reduces sell pressure.
2. Vote — Emission Control
In the classic ve-model, holders vote on how emissions are distributed across pools (gauge voting). This is not abstract “governance participation” — it’s control over money flows.
Gauge voting mechanics:
- The protocol emits a fixed number of tokens per epoch (week)
- ve-token holders allocate votes across pools (gauges)
- Pools receive emissions proportional to votes received
- Emissions attract liquidity providers → pool TVL grows
- Emission_pool — rewards for a specific pool per epoch
- Votes_pool — ve-tokens directed at this pool
- Votes_total — total ve-tokens that voted
3. Earn — Fee Distribution
ve-token holders receive a share of protocol fees. This creates real yield, not inflationary rewards:
- Revenue_ve — income for a specific holder
- Share_ve — percentage of fees directed to ve-holders (in Curve — 50%)
- veToken_i — a specific holder’s ve-tokens
- veToken_total — total ve-tokens outstanding
The combination of all three pillars creates a flywheel: locking reduces supply → price increases → stronger incentive to lock → more tokens locked. For more on how ve connects to demand, see 5 Demand Models.
Bribe Economics: Why Protocols Pay for Votes
Gauge voting creates a unique market: protocols compete to direct emissions toward their pools, because emissions attract liquidity, and liquidity attracts users.
The Bribe Rationality Formula
It’s rational for a protocol to “bribe” ve-token holders if the bribe cost is less than the value of the attracted emissions:
- Bribe — amount paid to ve-holders for votes
- Emission_attracted — additional emissions directed to the desired pool
- Token_price — market price of the emitted token
Example calculation:
- Protocol X pays $100,000 in bribes per epoch
- Attracts 500,000 CRV in emissions to its pool
- CRV price is $0.50 → attracted emissions = $250,000
- Bribe ROI: ($250,000 − $100,000) / $100,000 = 150%
As long as ROI is positive, a rational protocol continues bribing. This creates sustained demand for ve-tokens.
The Bribe Marketplace
The bribe ecosystem includes:
| Participant | Role | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol | Pays bribes for votes | Frax, Yearn, Convex |
| ve-holder | Receives bribes for votes | Individual veCRV holders |
| Aggregator | Pools ve-tokens, simplifies voting | Convex, Aura, Stake DAO |
| Bribe platform | Marketplace for placing bribes | Votium, HiddenHand |
Meta-Governance: Convex and Governing the Governors
Convex Finance exposed a fundamental property of the ve-model: voting power can be aggregated and repackaged.
How Convex Works
- Users deposit CRV into Convex and receive cvxCRV
- Convex locks received CRV as veCRV for the maximum duration
- CVX holders (Convex’s governance token) vote on how Convex directs its votes
- Result: 1 CVX controls the votes of many veCRV
- Leverage shows how many veCRV one CVX controls
- Example: if Convex holds 250M veCRV with ~100M CVX in circulation → leverage ≈ 2.5x (actual numbers fluctuate with veCRV decay and new deposits)
Economic Consequences
Meta-governance creates a three-tier structure:
| Level | Token | Controls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Base | CRV | Liquidity in Curve pools |
| 2. Governance | veCRV | CRV emission distribution |
| 3. Meta-governance | CVX | Direction of veCRV votes |
It’s cheaper for a protocol to bribe CVX holders (meta-governance) than to directly bribe veCRV holders, due to the leverage effect.
Similar aggregators:
- Aura Finance — for veBAL (Balancer)
- Stake DAO — multi-protocol aggregator
Evolution: ve(3,3) and the Solidly Model
Andre Cronje (Yearn creator) proposed ve(3,3) — a hybrid of the ve-model with (3,3) mechanics from OlympusDAO. The key difference: 100% of fees go to ve-token holders who voted for specific pools.
Differences from Classic ve
| Parameter | Classic ve (Curve) | ve(3,3) (Velodrome) |
|---|---|---|
| Fees | Distributed equally to all ve-holders | Only to those who voted for the pool |
| Emissions | Separate from fees | Also directed by voting |
| Decay | Yes | Yes |
| Anti-dilution | No | Rebase proportional to emissions |
| Incentive to vote | Emission control | Control + direct revenue |
Anti-dilution rebase in ve(3,3): if the protocol emits new tokens, ve-holders receive additional ve-tokens to compensate for dilution. Implementations vary:
- Velodrome/Solidly (original):
Rebase = Emission_week × (veSupply / Total_supply)²— quadratic: the higher the locked share, the larger the rebase. At 50% locked, rebase = 25% of emissions; at 80% locked, rebase = 64% - Aerodrome:
Rebase = Emission_week × (1 − veSupply / Total_supply)— inverse: rebase is larger when fewer tokens are locked, incentivizing locking at low participation rates
- Rebase — total ve-tokens distributed to all ve-holders per epoch (computed)
- veSupply — total locked ve-tokens
- Total_supply — total token supply
- Individual share: proportional to veToken_i / veSupply
- Quadratic dependence means rebase grows faster than lock rate
Implementation Comparison
| Protocol | Token | Max lock | Fees to ve | Gauge voting | Meta-governance | Anti-dilution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Curve | veCRV | 4 years | 50% from all pools | Yes | Convex (CVX) | No |
| Balancer | veBAL (legacy) | 1 year | 75% of protocol fees (until 2026) | Yes | Aura (AURA) | No |
| Velodrome | veVELO | 4 years | 100% from voted pools | Yes | No | Yes (rebase) |
| Aerodrome | veAERO | 4 years | 100% from voted pools | Yes | No | Yes (rebase) |
| Pendle | vePENDLE (legacy) | 2 years | 80% (until Jan 2026) | Yes (by pool) | No | No |
| Thena | veTHE | 2 years | 90% fees + 100% incentives from voted pools | Yes | No | Yes |
When to Use the ve-Model
The ve-model is not a universal tool. It requires specific conditions to function.
ve-readiness checklist
When ve Does NOT Fit
- Early stage — no revenue to distribute, gauge voting is meaningless
- Single product — no multiple pools to vote on, no competition for emissions
- High network fees — on Ethereum L1, small holders can’t participate due to gas costs
- Speculative token — without real revenue, the ve-model becomes a pyramid: the only lock incentive is hope for price appreciation
Risks and Limitations
Governance Capture
Aggregators (Convex, Aura) can concentrate >50% of voting power, gaining de facto control over the protocol. Convex controls a significant share of veCRV, making CVX effectively Curve’s governance token.
Position Illiquidity
Locked tokens cannot be sold before expiry. If the token price drops, the ve-holder suffers losses with no exit. “Wrapper” solutions have appeared (cvxCRV, sdCRV), but they trade at a discount.
Bribe Concentration
Large protocols with big bribe budgets can capture the bulk of emissions, leaving smaller pools without rewards. This can lead to an oligopoly in liquidity management.
Inflationary Spiral
If bribe costs begin to exceed the value of attracted emissions (ROI < 0), protocols stop bribing. Without bribes, demand for ve-tokens falls → unlocks → supply increases → price drops. For more on inflationary risks, see the article on staking.
Design Parameters
If you’ve decided to use the ve-model, here are the key parameters:
| Parameter | Range | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum lock | 1–4 years | 2 years for new protocols, 4 for mature ones |
| Fee share to ve | 50–100% | 100% for ve(3,3); 50–75% for classic |
| Epoch frequency | 1–4 weeks | 1 week (standard) |
| Anti-dilution | Yes / No | Yes, if inflation > 10% annually |
| Minimum lock | 1 week–3 months | 1 week (lowers entry barrier) |
| LP boost | 1x–2.5x | 2.5x (Curve standard) |
Key Takeaways
The ve-model solves the incentive alignment problem between a protocol and its token holders through a commitment device. Three pillars — lock, vote, earn — create a flywheel that works when the protocol has stable revenue.
The evolution from Curve (classic ve) to Velodrome (ve(3,3)) shows the direction: direct link between voting and revenue, anti-dilution, deployment on L2 for accessibility.
The key design question: does the protocol generate enough revenue for the ve-model to create real incentives, rather than merely redistributing inflation? If the answer is “no” — the model is premature, and simpler demand models are a better starting point.
Need a ve-model for your protocol?
We've designed ve-tokenomics for DeFi protocols across lending, DEXs, and yield platforms. We calculate optimal lock parameters and stress-test sustainability.
Get in touch