Concave is a Former Treasury-Backed CNV Staking Protocol

From CNV deposit to lsdCNV position

45 to 365 days defined each Concave stake, while 1 lsdCNV NFT carried its principal, maturity and reward state.

The holder selected an amount and a term. The staking contract transferred CNV into custody, recorded the opening timestamp and minted an ERC-721 token named Liquid Staked CNV, or lsdCNV. The NFT carried a unique 256-bit token ID, so two positions from the same wallet remained separate even when they held equal principal. Ownership of the NFT controlled the economic claim. At maturity, its owner called the unlock function, the contract returned the position's CNV plus claimable protocol rewards and the NFT ceased to represent an active lock on Ethereum mainnet.

That structure made the time commitment transferable without making the underlying CNV freely withdrawable. A buyer acquired the remaining wait, reward state and redemption right together. Because ERC-721 ownership is indivisible, selling part of a position required selling the entire NFT; separate maturities required separate locks.

Ethereum gas and the real cost of a lock

2 Ethereum transactions normally framed Concave's standard entry: 1 ERC-20 approval and 1 lock call, with both paying gas in ETH (compare Concave compared ).

An ordinary ERC-20 path first approved the staking contract, then submitted the lock. CNV also implemented EIP-2612 permit signatures, and the staking implementation included a route that paired authorization with locking. The lock itself added a 0% protocol percentage fee, leaving acquisition price, DEX price impact and Ethereum gas as the economic costs. The fixed gas equation was gas used multiplied by effective gas price; both inputs changed with network demand. Chain ID 1 identified Ethereum mainnet, while every contract address occupied 20 bytes and displayed 40 hexadecimal characters after the 0x prefix. Those identifiers fixed the destination even when wallet labels differed.

Treasury growth, bonds and anti-dilution

2 linked flows powered Concave's model: accrual bonds enlarged the treasury and term staking allocated part of CNV issuance to locked positions.

The protocol opened publicly on 31 March 2022 with this bond-and-stake loop as its main product. Accrual bonds accepted treasury assets and issued CNV on a vesting schedule, creating supply growth that diluted an unchanged balance. Term-weighted anti-dilution accounting redirected part of that new CNV toward stakers, with the longest lock receiving the strongest protection subject to pool capacity. Treasury dividends formed a second proposed reward source. Assets such as DAI and FRAX could fund those distributions, linking payouts to bond proceeds, portfolio income and policy decisions rather than a fixed deposit rate.

CNV and lsdCNV as separate on-chain assets

18 decimal places defined CNV amounts, while 1 ERC-721 lsdCNV token represented each separate fixed-term staking position.

CNV followed ERC-20 with 18 decimal places, making 1 whole CNV equal to 10^18 base units, and it implemented EIP-2612 permit approvals. Its Ethereum contract was 0x000000007a58f5f58E697e51Ab0357BC9e260A04. Liquid Staked CNV used 0x93c3a816242e50ea8871a29bf62cC3df58787fBD and an OpenZeppelin ERC-721 implementation behind a transparent upgradeable proxy. Each lsdCNV token used a uint256 identifier, a 256-bit field, while its associated position data distinguished amount, term, start and maturity. The proxy recorded an implementation upgrade on 30 May 2022, illustrating that the staking address and executable logic were separate objects. Transferring lsdCNV transferred the whole claim; CNV itself remained fungible.

How did longer locks receive greater reward weight?

365 days gave a Concave position the strongest term weighting, while the 45-day floor received the weakest anti-dilution treatment.

The mechanism matched reward share to commitment length. Bond issuance expanded CNV supply, and the staking calculation assigned a larger portion of related emissions to longer positions. In protocol language, the longest pool targeted non-dilution: its CNV balance grew alongside eligible supply expansion, subject to the pool cap and policy inputs. A 45-day position accepted a smaller weight in exchange for reaching maturity sooner.

Non-dilution described token-share accounting, not purchasing power. CNV market price, treasury asset values and reward-asset prices still moved independently, so a larger token balance did not establish a fixed economic return. Anti-dilution also depended on eligible bond activity and policy configuration; a quiet bond market did not create the same emission stream as an active one.

The 2022 lifecycle from entry to exit

3 checks framed the historical Concave entry path: Ethereum mainnet, enough CNV for the lock and ETH for execution gas.

The public workflow began with MetaMask or another WalletConnect-compatible EVM wallet on chain ID 1. A holder selected an amount and a term between 45 and 365 days, approved CNV or used permit and confirmed the lock. The contract then minted 1 lsdCNV NFT for that position. Wallet ownership controlled transfers during the term. Once the recorded maturity arrived, the NFT owner submitted an unlock transaction, received the redeemable CNV and completed the position lifecycle.

That workflow belongs to the historical protocol. The original branded site now redirects away from the DeFi application, while the remaining documentation no longer presents active bonding or staking instructions. The contracts and lsdCNV records remain on Ethereum, but persistent state does not establish a maintained entry service. A block explorer still shows balances, ownership and maturities as persistent chain data; any reward program requires a separately maintained interface. For the underlying detail, read Concave review steps.

Liquidity limits behind the NFT wrapper

1 NFT wrapper made each Concave lock transferable, yet the 45-day minimum still blocked direct redemption of underlying CNV before maturity. The wrapper served two uses: it preserved a fixed commitment for protocol accounting and gave the holder a possible secondary-market exit. Selling lsdCNV transferred its remaining term and reward state, so buyers priced time, CNV exposure and market depth together. Thin demand could push the NFT below the value a holder assigned to its eventual redemption. Each maturity remained non-fungible, unlike a pooled vault share. A user who required immediate fungibility would have preferred unlocked CNV or a fungible vault share.

Contract, treasury and market exposures

3 exposures shaped every Concave position: an upgradeable staking proxy, treasury strategy decisions and secondary-market depth for lsdCNV.

The transparent proxy separated the public staking address from its implementation, giving the administrative layer power to change contract logic. Treasury results depended on assets such as DAI, FRAX and liquidity positions, while bond issuance altered CNV supply. The NFT reduced the rigidity of a lock, yet it introduced a distinct market whose bids reflected remaining duration and reward expectations. The staking implementation also used pause and role controls, so operational authority mattered alongside autonomous contract rules.

• Choose 45 to 365 days only when the CNV principal can remain committed for that entire term.
• Keep ETH available for the lock, any NFT transfer and the later unlock transaction.
• Treat CNV and lsdCNV as 2 assets with different liquidity and pricing conditions.
• Account for the proxy administrator before relying on unchanged staking logic.
• Base reward expectations on treasury assets, bond issuance and term weight rather than a displayed APY.

A plain CNV holding avoided maturity and NFT-market exposure, while it retained CNV price risk and the token contract's own control model.

Who was Concave's long-lock model built for?

3 conditions described Concave's intended participant: a long CNV horizon, tolerance for treasury policy and no need for immediate direct redemption.

The model suited holders who wanted their claim represented as a transferable position while committing for as long as 12 months. Olympus DAO offered the closest treasury-backed comparison through OHM and gOHM, without copying Concave's lsdCNV term NFT. Convex Finance directed Curve and Frax liquidity rewards through CVX and vote-locked CVX, including locks of at least 16 weeks. Yearn Finance pooled assets in strategy vaults and issued fungible shares, while Uniswap v3 represented concentrated liquidity positions as NFTs without a managed treasury reward promise. Those alternatives separated reserve-currency exposure, liquidity incentives, vault strategy and market-making into clearer choices.