Where to point your veAERO this epoch — ranked by dollar value per vote, adjusted for the fact that your own vote dilutes the pool you cast it into.
Nothing is sent anywhere — the numbers below are computed in your browser from a public snapshot of on-chain data.
| Pool | Vote % | veAERO | Expected $ | Pool votes now | Consistency |
|---|
Percentages are whole numbers that add up to exactly 100 — Aerodrome's voting UI rejects the 102% you get from rounding each weight on its own.
| Pool | Predicted $/vote | Current $/vote | Edge | Trailing avg | Votes | Consistency | Epochs |
|---|
Value per vote. Each pool pays out bribes plus fees to whoever voted for it, split by vote weight. Divide that by the votes already sitting there and you get dollars per veAERO. The predicted figure uses a trailing average across recent epochs rather than just last week's number.
Self-dilution. Voting into a pool adds your votes to the denominator, so the last vote you cast into a pool is worth less than the first. The allocation hands out your veAERO in small slices, each time to whichever pool currently offers the most for the next slice. That is why it spreads across several pools instead of dumping everything into the top-ranked one.
Consistency. A pool that paid $600 once and nothing for five weeks averages the same as one paying $100 every week, and the average alone cannot tell them apart. Consistency scores how steady the payouts have been: 1 is perfectly even, lower is spikier. A pool with only one epoch of history scores 0 — one data point cannot prove steadiness.
What it does not model. Other voters react to incentives too, and this holds their votes fixed at the last snapshot. It does not predict new bribes, and it is not advice — it is arithmetic on public data.