First of big shout out to @Sawyer for meticulously documenting these changes every other week and grinding the governance work.
We want to present a historical view of the eUSD revenue share development and also summarize pertinent questions that come up time and again in the weekly DTF governance standups.
First off: How did the eUSD revenue share progress over time?
We can see that UglyCash is really growing their eUSD balances, and seems to be buying eUSD on the open market vs minting new eUSD.
All in all the revenue share is definitely helping them grow, it seems.
So far, no further insights into the use of funds or user growth have been forthcoming from their team.
eUSD stakers have repeatedly called out a desire for more information on how the rev share is used by Sentz and UglyCash, and to see more detailed progress reports form their teams.
IPs with revenue share updates pass regularly, even in the absence of said information.
Other eUSD governors have called out that the experiment is not time boxed, and not end date is set. While this is formally true, eUSD governors can put an end to the experiment every two weeks by voting against the latest revShare update, and/or by submitting a formal proposal to end it.
TL;DR: The experiment seems to be very successful, eUSD governors seem to be happy to continue the revenue share, more information from UglyCash and Sentz would be welcome.
Thanks for putting this together Raph, great to have an overview of how the rev share has progressed without having to go into each proposal individually.
My only gripe with the data presented is that we can’t definitely say that fintech held eUSD is growing in dollar terms because only percentage change has been presented, displaying fintech relative to non-fintech change. I think the addition of a dollar terms analysis would complete this data set and a stacked bar chart could combine all data points nicely.
Could also be something else to include in the Quarterly reports @Sawyer?
eUSD rev share participation is materially outpacing its TVL, and lagging overall stablecoin category growth. Also eUSD’s stRSR incentives for security are dropping.
Observation:
eUSD made 17 rev share adjustments in 12 months. High-frequency changes with no clear material impact. This cadence risks governor fatigue and lacks alignment with rev share participant transparency on fund usage and impacts—missing chances to build shared ownership and compounding community trust. It reads more like busy work than strategic adaptation.
Recommendation:
Shift eUSD to quarterly rev share adjustments to reduce governance load and improve quality/depth of updates. Require each revenue participant to post a data-backed update in the RFC for review by the community and governors before they vote to adjust rev share %. Like any role, compensation for each of Sentz, Ugly Cash and eUSD Champion should follow clear, demonstrable outcomes, not assumptions or inertia.
Here is the associated data table for the above charts and findings: (TVL data from CoinGecko)
I plan to vote AGAINST all future eUSD revenue share change proposals unless recipients each individually (Sentz, Ugly Cash, RToken Champion) provide written updates posted to the relevant RFC, before the onchain proposal vote. These updates may include past/future specific goals, use of funds to grow their respective (our shared) ecosystem, whats working, whats not working, and any other relevant learnings. This is table stakes in modern day decentralized ecosystem governance.
I encourage fellow eUSD governors to do the same.
Being part of a shared ecosystem includes steady 2-way dialogue on contributions. If you’re being compensated, it’s reasonable to take the lead sharing the outcomes and learnings.
If we’re fielding 24 revenue share proposals a year, we should see 24 meaningful updates from each rev share recipient in return.
Regarding frequency…
Startups are hard. Every administrative distraction risks diluting more growthy efforts. At present, this 24x per year rapid-fire run rate feels mismatched to the reality of results. A quarterly rhythm—four proposals, four in-depth updates—would support deeper reflection and engagement.
If eUSD’s TVL starts outpacing the broader stablecoin market (per DeFiLlama), a faster cadence could be justified.
