Bribes, rebates, and kickbacks in DeFi

Crypto calls them bribes, but they're incentive payments. The economics don't change because the label sounds edgy. Bribes are expenses when you pay them and revenue when you receive them. Getting the accounting right matters.

Key takeaways

Bribes are economically equivalent to incentives: expenses for payers, revenue for recipients
Protocols pay bribes to direct emissions or liquidity; voters receive bribes for their governance power
Correct accounting treats bribes paid as operating expenses and bribes received as fee revenue
Bribe markets reveal the cost of influence and the value of governance tokens with voting power
Strategically rational when ROI exceeds cost, but sustainability requires network effects beyond bribes

What Bribes Are in Crypto

Bribes are payments to influence decisions. Curve pioneered this with vote escrow governance. Protocols pay CRV holders to vote for emissions directed to specific pools. The payment is called a bribe. The economics are straightforward incentives.

The recipient holds voting power over valuable resources (emissions). The payer wants those resources directed favorably. They pay the voter to vote their way. This is lobbying or marketing, relabeled with dramatic terminology.

Bribes work in any system where governance controls resource allocation. Curve gauges, Balancer pools, Frax AMOs. If voters determine where value flows, bribes emerge to influence those votes. The market discovers the price of influence.

Bribes vs Incentives vs Revenue

Functionally, bribes are incentives. A protocol pays users to take desired actions. Direct liquidity mining pays LPs to provide capital. Bribes pay voters to direct emissions to pools. Both are expenses purchasing outcomes.

For recipients, bribes are revenue. Voters receive tokens for voting. This is fee revenue from providing a service (governance votes). It should be accounted as such on the voter's income statement.

The distinction between bribes and other incentives is social, not economic. "Bribe" sounds nefarious. "Growth incentive" sounds strategic. The cash flows are identical. Both are expenses at fair value for the payer.

Who Pays and Who Receives

Payers are typically protocols seeking liquidity or emissions. A new stablecoin protocol wants Curve emissions for its pool. It bribes veCRV holders to vote for gauge weight. The cost is the bribe. The benefit is emissions directed to their pool.

Recipients are governance token holders with voting power. veCRV holders, veBAL holders, veFXS holders. They lock tokens to gain votes. They sell those votes to the highest bidder via bribe markets. Revenue comes from rent on their governance power.

Bribe aggregators create markets. Hidden Hand, Votium, Bribe.crv. Protocols post bribes. Voters claim rewards. The platforms facilitate price discovery and reduce transaction costs. They're marketplaces for influence.

How Bribes Distort Metrics

Bribe-driven liquidity looks organic in TVL charts. A protocol bribes its way to $100M TVL. Dashboards show growth. Reality: remove bribes and TVL evaporates. The growth was rented, not earned.

Emissions directed via bribes create artificial APYs. A pool offers 50% APY because the protocol bribes for emissions. Users see high yields and deposit. They're farming emissions funded by bribes, not genuine protocol revenue. When bribes stop, yields collapse.

Bribe costs often exceed the value created. Protocol pays $2M in bribes to attract $50M TVL. That TVL generates $1M in fees. Net: -$1M. The bribe was inefficient. But TVL charts show success. Revenue charts show income. Neither captures the loss.

Correct Accounting Treatment

For the payer: bribes are operating expenses. Include them in the income statement alongside other incentives. Measure at fair value. Subtract from revenue to calculate profit.

For the recipient (voter): bribes are fee revenue. Add them to other income sources. They're payment for providing governance services. Economically equivalent to staking rewards or LP fees.

Don't double-count. If a protocol pays bribes to get emissions, the emissions themselves are a separate line item. Bribes are the cost to acquire access to those emissions. Both affect the P&L but represent different flows.

When Bribes Are Strategically Rational

Bribes make sense when ROI is positive. Spend $1M in bribes, receive $3M in emissions, generate $4M in protocol fees from the resulting TVL. Net: +$2M after bribe costs. This is profitable customer acquisition.

Bootstrapping liquidity through bribes can work. Early stablecoin projects bribed for Curve pools. They established deep liquidity. Over time, bribes decreased as organic usage sustained pools. The bribes were a launch investment.

Long-term bribe dependence is irrational. If you must perpetually bribe to maintain liquidity, you're renting market share, not building it. Eventually costs exceed benefits. The strategy is unsustainable.

Network effects justify bribes. If bribing builds liquidity that attracts users who create fees that exceed bribe costs, the loop is positive. Bribes are temporary. Product-market fit persists. Good investment.

See live data

Links open DefiLlama or other external sources.

Related Concepts

Fees vs revenue vs profit: How to account for bribes in a complete P&L
Emissions vs revenue: Why bribe costs should reduce net profitability
DeFi income statement: Where bribes belong as operating expenses
Payback period for token incentives: Calculating ROI on bribe spending

FAQ

Are bribes illegal?

Not in crypto governance contexts. These are voluntary incentive payments in permissionless systems. The term 'bribe' is provocative branding, not a legal determination. They're economically equivalent to lobbying or marketing spend. Regulatory treatment varies by jurisdiction.

Do bribes create sustainable liquidity?

Rarely. Bribe-attracted liquidity typically leaves when bribes stop. Sustainable liquidity requires genuine demand for the pool or product. Bribes can bootstrap initial liquidity, but graduation to organic retention is necessary for long-term sustainability.

How do I know if protocol revenue includes bribes received?

Check if the protocol holds governance tokens in other systems (veCRV, veBAL). If yes, they likely receive bribes. These appear as protocol revenue but are really fee income from governance participation. Not all dashboards separate this out. Verify the source.

What's the typical ROI on bribe spending?

Highly variable. Efficient bribes might generate 3-5x value in emissions relative to cost. Inefficient bribes break even or lose money. The ROI depends on competition for votes, the value of emissions, and whether attracted liquidity generates fees. Most protocols don't disclose this.

Can voters get paid by multiple protocols?

Yes. Bribe markets are competitive. Multiple protocols bid for the same votes. Voters allocate to the highest bidder. This creates auction dynamics where bribe costs rise with competition. Efficient markets arbitrage away excess returns.

Should I treat bribe revenue differently than fee revenue?

Economically they're both income. But bribe revenue depends on holding governance tokens and selling votes. If the protocol exits those positions, bribe revenue disappears. It's less sticky than fee revenue from core protocol usage. Account for this in sustainability analysis.

What happens when bribe markets become too expensive?

Protocols stop bribing or shift to alternative strategies. If $1M in bribes only generates $800K in value, they're irrational. Competition pushes bribe costs toward equilibrium where marginal benefit equals marginal cost. Expensive markets signal high demand for governance influence or inefficient protocols.

Cite this definition

Bribes in crypto are token payments to influence governance votes or resource allocation, functioning economically as marketing expenses for payers seeking emissions or liquidity, and fee revenue for governance token holders selling their voting power through bribe marketplaces.