# eUSD Revenue Share - Historical view **URL:** \ **Category:** Electronic Dollar (eUSD)\ **Created:** [July 28, 2025, 11:26am UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226 "2025-07-28T11:26:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sawyer](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/sawyer/32/187_2.png) [@Sawyer](https://forum.reserve.org/u/Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 2:15am UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/21 "2025-08-21T02:15:34Z")
Good catch James, Sentz should be at 4.4, however the Revenue stands. As mentioned in my previous comment, from Feb 1 to April 1 the data is not reliable. No auctions were ran during the month of March. Additionally, in March one of the RevShare updates didn’t pass and by default stayed at a monthly cadence for that month. ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/c3b544c738fb06d89a308a7e62734ee8636c72d5.png) Here is the tx for the Revenue auction: [Ethereum Transaction Hash: 0xecc9b06daa... | Etherscan](https://etherscan.io/tx/0xecc9b06daa456fa47f838484f7f110262f902171870cac94108f5ac142bb022c) ”Missing the eUSD overall yield for each period that gets split amongst sharing parties” The revenue that has been auctioned is a function of the yield and is left out as it is not a data point that helped me come to the conclusion that I did. “Also if you can share a read-only of your data table that could accelerate my analysis..” I dont want this doc to be shared right now, Ham and I both calculated two different ways and came up with two different results. We both came to the same conclusion that a monthly cadence will create compounding losses for the FinTechs. I’d like to see your own analysis to prove us both right or both wrong. ”creates governance fatigue” I dont think there is any evidence to support the claim of governance fatigue. ”6.5% loss is probably immaterial…” I strongly disagree, the FinTechs can easily go to T-bills or sUSDS and receive 100% of the yield of their customers funds. I am not in favor of intentionally inflicting compounding losses on the FinTechs. ---
**Author:** ![Sawyer](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/sawyer/32/187_2.png) [@Sawyer](https://forum.reserve.org/u/Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 2:31am UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/22 "2025-08-21T02:31:08Z")
> [@0xJMG](#): > > Monthly cadence captures the full growth of supply and yield across the period This is false. I don’t understand how the FinTechs are earning more money with a negative delta in the percent. Bi-weekly: FinTech Percent Week 1: 5% FinTech Percent Week 2: 5% FinTech Percent Week 3: 10% FinTech Percent Week 4: 10% Monthly: FinTech Percent Week 1: 5% FinTech Percent Week 2: 5% FinTech Percent Week 3: 5% FinTech Percent Week 4: 5% Your analysis is saying that Monthly nets more revenue? ---
**Author:** ![0xJMG](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/0xjmg/32/1104_2.png) [@0xJMG](https://forum.reserve.org/u/0xJMG)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 3:03am UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/23 "2025-08-21T03:03:07Z")
Ok will remove all the March data to keep it clean. So we will be using the 4 month dataset. The math I shared, in the open, inspectable spreadsheet, shows UC making more money on a monthly cadence. It might not be correct. If you have any better inputs (all the blue numbers) to share, please do and I will modify. Or if you see anything wrong with the formulas, please say so. Something not adding up. Appreciate your help. ---
**Author:** ![0xJMG](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/0xjmg/32/1104_2.png) [@0xJMG](https://forum.reserve.org/u/0xJMG)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2025, 9:22pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/24 "2025-08-26T21:22:25Z")
@Sawyer I’d like to use your inspectable spreadsheet to clarify the formulaic math on unresolved questions, or you can fork [the one I’ve constructed here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Juv667fyLyOAnDaB70uM_iBnTUJfB4xLSnpNF-ET7VY/edit?gid=1204290918#gid=1204290918) (adding correct inputs) to help resolve open issues. Two different analyses produced errors, which makes us uneasy. Ham’s work compared mismatched time periods, while Sawyer’s included at least one incorrect input. I do not have the correct inputs on how the maths were calculated (so i cannot do it myself), you do. Mistakes happen, and that’s fine—especially when the math is transparent, inspectable, and open to collective collaboration. Relying on ‘napkin math’ and screenshots, as mentioned above, creates unecessary risk to the eUSD ecosystem. We need to move past that by openly sharing spreadsheets in a way the community can inspect and verify. As stated earlier, I am voting **AGAINST** any further revenue share changes until there is greater clarity on the outstanding questions. ---
**Author:** ![Raphael\_Anode](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/raphael_anode/32/1100_2.png) [@Raphael\_Anode](https://forum.reserve.org/u/Raphael_Anode)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 4:49am UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/25 "2025-08-27T04:49:31Z")
> [@0xJMG](#): > > As stated earlier, I am voting **AGAINST** any further revenue share changes until there is greater clarity on the outstanding questions. Just one game-theoretical consideration here. Voting AGAINST the updates @Sawyer is producing signals that the voter is against the new parameters first and foremost. If I read your posts correctly, and please feel free to push back here, you want to change the cadence and introduce new reporting requirements. To do so, the best way would be to submit an RFC, that basically copies the [original RevShare RFC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/rfc-eusd-rev-share-with-fintech-apps/801) (which you support) but add clarification on cadence and reporting duties. OR to abstain from voting as this reduces the overall legitimacy of the polls (less turnout), signals governance fatigue, and reduces the chances of these polls meeting quorum and passing. Of course you’re more than welcome to vote AGAINST to express your direct opposition to the ongoing process, especially since it is coupled with excellent communication of your rationale here on the forum. This reply is meant to help to think through the options here. ---
**Author:** ![0xJMG](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/0xjmg/32/1104_2.png) [@0xJMG](https://forum.reserve.org/u/0xJMG)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 7:35pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/26 "2025-08-27T19:35:51Z")
Hi @Raphael_Anode , eUSD began revenue-sharing with Fintechs (Ugly Cash, Sentz) 13 months ago, following conversations initiated 15 months back. > [@\[RFC\] eUSD Rev Share with Fintech Apps](https://forum.reserve.org/t/rfc-eusd-rev-share-with-fintech-apps/801): > > [RFC] - eUSD Rev Share for Fintech Apps Distribution is critical and at the same time very difficult for stablecoins. At the same time, eUSD has an overabundance of overcollateralization. This creates an interesting opportunity for eUSD governors to potentially grow the usage and market cap of eUSD. Proposal: eUSD should share underlying revenue with distribution partners, starting with fintech apps, who use and promote eUSD for their customers. TLDR Reasoning: This could lead to the revenue f… eUSD started sharing revenue with @Sawyer eUSD RToken Champion for governance and brand building 9 months ago. > [@\[IP\] eUSD Rev Share with RToken Champion](https://forum.reserve.org/t/ip-eusd-rev-share-with-rtoken-champion/952): > > Summary My name is Tom Sawyer and I go by 0xTomSawyer online and I have been a Reserve Ecosystem contributor since March of 2023 where I began putting the pieces together of what would eventually become High Yield USD. Based on my learnings with hyUSD and other RTokens in the ecosystem, I have started to concentrate some of my efforts into eUSD. Over the past few months I have spent a lot of time writing up proposals and moving these proposals through the governance process to make improvement… > [@\[IP\] eUSD Rev Share - Finale](https://forum.reserve.org/t/ip-eusd-rev-share-finale/990): > > Summary First, I’d like to apologize for posting twice in the forums without clearly articulating my case. This post encompasses everything valuable I wish to contribute to the Reserve ecosystem. To reiterate, I am requesting a 3% revenue share from eUSD as compensation for driving its growth, and monitoring risk. I prefer this approach over seeking a grant from Confusion Capital because I aim to make RToken ambassadorship my full-time job. Confusion Capital cannot provide recurring grants and … eUSD total TVL has decreased -6.62% during the last 12 months ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/b16208aa95cdfc784f974153c3d8b136c2568652.png) The overall stablecoin market has grown 64% in the last 12 onths according to DefiLlama. ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/452963c34e6b28986847ac287e011c20f89a8292.png) As reported at the top of this RFC, there have been 17 eUSD rev share changes in about 12 months, and tracking toward a standard cadence of 26/yr (bi weekly). The most material impact aside from the extra governance work, has been a decrease in yield shared with RSR stakers providing governance and overcollateralization. ![Distribution of Revenue Share Over Time](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/16eea9d274e23a5b6b0c06b049df84cfc9fbba71.png) In the most recent eUSD Quarterly report, less work is being done on awareness and brand (# of posts), and less impact is being had (impressions and engagement rate). ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/47d9935bd8655cc82bfad80063bee56835940d5c.png) This is barely one post per day. Borrowing from a [recent post from investor and brand builder Jon Wu](https://x.com/jonwu_/status/1960719780605825087). “The internet is no longer deterministic. It’s algorithm-driven, and not even among your own followers. Your posts are constantly being shown to a panel of users. If they like it, the panel is expanded. If they don’t, you don’t get reach. That means putting out a high volume of posts isn’t noise / spam / “low signal.” Volume is necessary so the algorithm can pick up your winners and make them viral. You have to experiment with high volume, learn quickly, and double down on your winning formats. The cost of failure is ~0. The tree falls in the forest and no one sees it. But the cost of not experimenting is astronomical.” > [@\[REPORT\] eUSD Quarterly Report Q2 2025](https://forum.reserve.org/t/report-eusd-quarterly-report-q2-2025/1213): > > Welcome to the Q2 2025 quarterly report for The Electronic Dollar (eUSD), designed to provide a comprehensive snapshot of the project’s performance and ecosystem developments. This report dives into key metrics, including governance activities across the forums and onchain, TVL(Total Value Locked) trends, critical DeFi metrics, and evolving social media engagement. By presenting these insights, our goal is to keep the eUSD community well-informed, foster transparency, and encourage active partic… Additionally the quarterly reports lack any substantive updates from rev share recipients Sentz and Ugly Cash. Are we in this together, or not? What’s working for them, what’s not, and where can the community contribute? **TLDR** 1. **Heavy focus on revenue-share maintenance.** 2. **But** … **eUSD TVL is shrinking while the stablecoin market expands.** 3. **Little eUSD brand awareness growth; we’re absent from conversations with potential Fintech app partners.** 4. **Excessive governance churn is creating fatigue, lowering safety through divided attention, meanwhile actually reducing eUSD overcollateralization.** 5. **No feedback loop from Fintech partners on what’s working and what’s not.** What’s been repeatedly suggested, yet punted, is rebalancing eUSD’s governace and growth cost/benefit equation. The hypothesis: shift effort from governance churn toward brand-building and awareness, which would better serve the ecosystem. To move forward, we need an apples-to-apples comparison in a transparent spreadsheet with inspectable formulas, showing how 26x/year, 12x/year, and 4x/year revenue-share adjustments impact stakeholder payouts. The goal is to identify the threshold of diminishing returns and weigh the overall cost/benefit for the eUSD community. **“Gross payout delta by cadence.”** If governance lift is reduced by more than 50%, is a 3% payout delta material? what about 5% or 8% delta? What is the delta target we are optimizing for and why? **“Effective net yield to partner” (APY).** How does gross payout delta by cadence translate into effective net yield to partner (APY)? Here is an illustration of the relationship: ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/c4e7e6f3fbad737a1cc1712d98dcc7cb20c5f532.png) But we can’t evaluate this in isolation. We also need to track the net yield actually paid to Sentz and Ugly Cash on their eUSD holdings. How does it stack up against alternatives like USDS or GHO? Quantitatively, what should eUSD’s yield premium be over sUSDS or competitors—50 bps, 100 bps, 200 bps? **Finally answering your post @Raphael_Anode.** IMO we should be voting AGAINST these revenue-share change proposals (or not putting them up at all) until a thorough impact analysis is completed (correct, transparent formulas, shared) and there is community consensus understanding, not punted. This situation perfectly illustrates eUSD’s current challenge: busywork theater, not enough impactful work. We should complete this analysis and revisit the TLDR above to see what can be rebalanced for the overall good of the eUSD ecosystem. It won’t be perfect, but it can be much better. I don’t mind putting up new proposals however I am hoping the current, compensated eUSD RToken Champion will take the lead on information and analysis disclosures and pulling the eUSD community together. Lot of opportunity here to compound the current eUSD RToken Champion configuration. The comments here on the eUSD Q2 report further illustrate the opportunity. > [@\[REPORT\] eUSD Quarterly Report Q2 2025](https://forum.reserve.org/t/report-eusd-quarterly-report-q2-2025/1213/3): > > Thank you for the write-up Tom. I got two call-outs, sectioned below: I’m personally tired of the votes for revenue share, and it must be a time cost to all parties, one that causes friction with RSR stakers, and I bet it adds uncertainty on the FinTech’s end, knowing their yield could be yanked at any time. Can there be any system where we offer them a one-year runway, with perhaps some stewards (yourself, Mallo, James, whoever) who could call shenanigans if they see fit (I doubt there woul… > [@\[REPORT\] eUSD Quarterly Report Q2 2025](https://forum.reserve.org/t/report-eusd-quarterly-report-q2-2025/1213/4): > > I think JMG has a point. eUSD does seem like a global, world class brand that is as yet unknown. There is inherent lore with the PayPal nod and the name and logo suggest a universal top tier dollar coin. I think given the coming onslaught of stablecoin launches and issuers, it’s in a prime position to ride the wave of “stablecoin buzz”. Not to mention the ability to adapt and incorporate the very best collateral. Ironically, the more issuers that arrive, the more eUSD’s unique features have the … > [@\[REPORT\] eUSD Quarterly Report Q2 2025](https://forum.reserve.org/t/report-eusd-quarterly-report-q2-2025/1213/6): > > Hi, long-time (multi-)staker and Reserve-believer here. As already posted on The Lodge, I have decided to unstake from eUSD (and USD3 and ETH+) recently (left a smaller portion in place for eUSD and USD3 to be able to continue to vote/govern). I’ll focus on the dollar-pegged RTokens/Yield DTFs here - and mostly from a simple staker perspective. There reason I unstaked is actually - unwillingly - evidenced by this Quarterly Report. It is very much ‘operational’ and ‘observation-based’. What I mea… We want eUSD to win. We want the RToken Champion to win. We want our fintech revenue-share partners to win. We want stRSR governors and overcollateral providers to win. ---
**Author:** ![Sawyer](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/sawyer/32/187_2.png) [@Sawyer](https://forum.reserve.org/u/Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2025, 3:09am UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/27 "2025-08-28T03:09:57Z")
Hey James, I’d like to illustrate more clearly why it is important to continue these bi-weekly RevShare updates for the FinTechs. In this example we will have two scenarios. Scenario A and scenario B. In Scenario A we will run the auctions bi-weekly. In scenario B we will run the auctions monthly. _Scenario A(Bi-weekly):_ FinTech Percent Week 1: 5% FinTech Percent Week 2: 5% FinTech Percent Week 3: 10% FinTech Percent Week 4: 10% _Scenario B(Monthly):_ FinTech Percent Week 1: 5% FinTech Percent Week 2: 5% **FinTech Percent Week 3: 5%** FinTech Percent Week 4: 5% I’ve highlighted in bold Week 3 Scenario B. If we keep the RevShare updates monthly, week 3 is where the FinTech, that is growing, will loose money. By not proposing that second update for the month, the FinTech that is growing will continue receiving revenue at 5%, even though their holdings reflect they should be at 10%. Jan 1 2025, Ugly Cash’s RevShare percent was at 3.66%, and now, it currently sits at 17.39%. By keeping with the bi-weekly updates we have minimized any losses to Ugly Cash. You’ve pointed out my incorrect data point as it pertains to Sentz, and so I understand wanting to discredit the entire Data set. In this case, I’d point to Ham’s data. Ham articulated how much loss the FinTechs would experience in both quarterly and monthly scenarios. Is Ham’s data not sufficient? In my opinion, it does not matter how small the loss is, I do not want any current(or new) FinTech to experience any loss in the RevShare program. Lastly, you’ve mentioned governance fatigue as one of the main reasons for moving the bi-weekly RevShare updates to a monthly cadence. Can you specify what data has led you to this conclusion? In my opinion, it is pretty clear that we are seeing a renewed strength in eUSD governance and I very much want this to continue. Examples of the renewed strength(opposite of fatigue) that I see, are the new comments in the eUSD quarterly report alongside this excellent conversation that we are having as a community. ---
**Author:** ![0xJMG](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/0xjmg/32/1104_2.png) [@0xJMG](https://forum.reserve.org/u/0xJMG)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2025, 11:50pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/28 "2025-08-29T23:50:28Z")
@Sawyer **Re: GOV FATIGUE & INCLUSION** There are 389 voting addresses on eUSD, yet only about 4 or 5 voting, mostly direct delegates from core team. This is 389 different talents and competencies that might potentially contribute, if asked, and if they felt their voice mattered. Here is what it was a year ago, here it is today. TLDR: decreasing # of voices. Not the direction we aspire for, unless decentralization in the Reserve ecosystem has been deprioritized. ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/3d58f614b9c2fd9151fbd04c0bd08c7f1f583cf3.png) Its unfortunate, you haven’t noticed governance fatigue. Here are few excerpts from public channels: > [@\[REPORT\] eUSD Quarterly Report Q2 2025](https://forum.reserve.org/t/report-eusd-quarterly-report-q2-2025/1213/3): > > I’m personally tired of the votes for revenue share, and it must be a time cost to all parties, > [@ham](#): > > However, I’m also deeply concerned about governor fatigue ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/abcf27e84d30c9eabd22f0572d1a847b299edb3c.png) ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/aa0346bf5c2610c53893a20d97407a3a86854181.png) Not to mention I get private DMs from the community unsolicited almost monthly on this. Its just become easier for people to bail out. **BIGGER ISSUE** The bigger issue is how eUSD brand building is progressing, since it was central to your original RToken Champion 3% revenue participation proposal. eUSD TVL is trending down, and your own report shows awareness and outreach declining against the backdrop of a stablecoin boom. The strategy of securing fintech rev-share partners is strong, but it depends first on marketing visibility, and later BD outreach to close. Hundreds of new fintech apps and stablecoins launched in the past year, many of which might benefit from a two-year-old, battle-tested eUSD that already pays. The lowest-cost way to get into their initial consideration is probably something eye-catching on X, Reddit, or YouTube. Leadership and direction are needed, though no one expects you to carry this alone. Doubling or tripling eUSD awareness would be meaningful even if no fintechs join the rev-share, and it would strengthen RSR and the wider Reserve ecosystem. There are 389 voting addresses on eUSD with skin in the game, many ready to help if asked and included. A simple invitation could turn them into amplifiers of the eUSD value proposition. We’re hoping you’ll step forward, set the tone, and rally the group, while keeping your revenue participation intact and broadening the effort. I imagine you too have finite time and cutting back governance administration to focus on eUSD awareness and growth measures are just one unnovel suggestion on how to do it. As just one of the eUSD stakers, I’d gladly support more than 3% for the RToken Champion—if results justify it, and that accountability should cut both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Sawyer](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/sawyer/32/187_2.png) [@Sawyer](https://forum.reserve.org/u/Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2025, 1:15pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/29 "2025-08-31T13:15:24Z")
> [@0xJMG](#): > > Its unfortunate, you haven’t noticed governance fatigue In comparing August 2024 to August 2025, the most significant change is that these RevShare proposals were not happening bi-weekly in August 2024. The bi-weekly RevShare proposals started happening in March of 2025 without interruption. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reason your advocating to stop doing the RevShare proposals at a bi-weekly cadence is because of governance fatigue? We are seeing an increase in governance participation now then we did at the start of the more frequent cadence. March of 2025 Voters: 5(5 for and 0 against) March of 2025 RSR: 427M RSR for and 0 against August of 2025 Voters: 7(5 for and 2 against) August of 2025 RSR: 546M for and 145M against ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/reserve/original/1X/f5b34ab3563a6a3b62d29fa9ba1bd496060942c9.png) ---
**Author:** ![0xJMG](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/0xjmg/32/1104_2.png) [@0xJMG](https://forum.reserve.org/u/0xJMG)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 9:20pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/30 "2025-09-02T21:20:22Z")
> [@Sawyer](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reason your advocating to stop doing the RevShare proposals at a bi-weekly cadence is because of governance fatigue? Core Issues: 1. eUSD brand building has slowed. Shows no signs of increasing awareness with a 3rd (or 4th) fintech for the rev share opportunity. 2. eUSD TVL has declined. 3. eUSD safety has weakened, both in community attention fatigued by repetitive activities and overcollateralization. 4. Governance diversity has not improved and in fact has eroded some compared to a year ago, raising both safety and centralization concerns. The current concentration of voters creates a “why bother” attitude in the community, as you’ll see scanning the Forums (Mallo’s post last week) and the Lodge. The eUSD rev-share frequency debate highlights just a ~0.15% yield payout difference\* for UglyCash holders, a trivial gain weighed against the three larger issues above. Adding additional context: RSR holders provide the liquidity cushion to sell RSR and fund the operations of UglyCash and its predecessor for the last five years. The eUSD yields are market leading to UglyCash, with no staking required by eUSD. \*I’ll share transparent, inspectable maths later this week. ---
**Author:** ![ham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecb155/32.png) [@ham](https://forum.reserve.org/u/ham)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2025, 2:37pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/31 "2025-09-05T14:37:20Z")
gm, have enjoyed following the discussion here and over on the [Q2 Report post](https://forum.reserve.org/t/report-eusd-quarterly-report-q2-2025/1213/11) but am starting to feel that the conversation is fragmented between these two posts and moving away from actionable next steps to re-align governors and fintechs. So far the discussion has been around reducing the frequency of the Rev Share updates and the maths around this before moving into what this time could be used for instead, brand building. Which while being a excellent conversation has deviated outside of the Fintech Revenue Share Programme. As governors we can’t dictate the time that Sawyer allocates to eUSD nor should we think we can, we can only look at his outputs, weigh-up if he has consistently added value and if we should continue sharing revenue with him. Although i’m sure these suggestions and ideas go a long way to help him decide where his time is most valuable like they do with me and the ETH based RTokens. While brand building is important I think we should nail the programme itself before we start wheeling it out in front of other fintechs and asking them to participate. In my last [post](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/8) I outlined 3 areas of the fintech revenue share programme that should be improved; fintech transparency, the frequency of the fintech rev share ratification votes and dropping over-collateralisation. ### Revenue Share Update frequency With regards to the Revenue Share Update frequency I’m actually in favour of the current structure to continue and feel further data collection and modelling is redundant. I’m sure Sawyer is fairly proficient in these now and makes a good point that more fintechs will only join this programme providing we have a sure and solid way to accurately track their balances, which atm we don’t. I’d rather use time to explore ways to more accurately track fintech balances and reduce the amount of ratification votes. I know @mattimost commented that optimistic governance will likely come in Q4 and @0xJMG idea of reducing the frequency will solve the latter but doesn’t more accurately track fintech balances. Maybe something more akin to the per block method @Raphael_Anode discussed in the last GovOps is a more elegant solution addressing both concerns at once. @Sawyer What are your thoughts here? Have you or are you planning to explore changes to the programme to track fintech balances more accurately and reduce vote burden or do you plan to continue under the same mandate until optimistic governance comes in Q4? ### Lack of Transparency / Dropping OC ratio I haven’t seen any further conversation on these points. Granted a lot of these conversations have likely to have been had in DM’s they eventually needs to come full circle updating the community on progress or lack thereof. @Sawyer have you made any progress addressing these concerns? What is the current stance by fintechs on these matters? Are they planning on coming back to the forums to address them in due course? Paging @josh for visibility also. ---
**Author:** ![Raphael\_Anode](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/raphael_anode/32/1100_2.png) [@Raphael\_Anode](https://forum.reserve.org/u/Raphael_Anode)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2025, 4:36pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/32 "2025-09-05T16:36:42Z")
Really excellent post. I also want to remind everyone that procedurally there are only three options: 1.) @Sawyer continues as is and proposals keep passing, the program continues to run as is 2.) An update to either the revenue share program or the eUSD champion program are published as RFC and pass, one or the other or both change. 3.) A proposal to end one or the other revenue share program is published and passes. Then these program or programs ends. Anything else is very stimulating discussion, which I quite enjoy, but does not in and of itself change anything. ---
**Author:** ![0xJMG](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.reserve.org/0xjmg/32/1104_2.png) [@0xJMG](https://forum.reserve.org/u/0xJMG)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2025, 11:45pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226/33 "2025-09-05T23:45:34Z")
Great reset, @ham . As promised, here’s the cadence issue sliced and diced—at least one surprise in there. 😜 > [@Precision ≠ Governance: Getting eUSD Yield Payouts Right](https://forum.reserve.org/t/precision-governance-getting-eusd-yield-payouts-right/1240): > > To avoid tangents, this post sets aside ongoing debates on eUSD strategy and process. Recent weeks have sparked discussion on maximizing yield payouts for eUSD, often relying on rough napkin math and static screenshots. I’ve been guilty of this too. [The linked file](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aTztsdr-JVkrjucOysJnRUUTX-SBY-kpCxa0AV9Jsh0/edit?gid=151055773#gid=151055773) provides a granular, transparent dataset with inspectable formulas, welcoming your critique or improvement proposals. Here is what you will see when you open the file, and scroll rightward: eUSD supply data pulled from Register f… One part you raised @ham deserves more spotlight: _“While brand building is important, I think we should nail the programme itself before wheeling it out in front of other fintechs and asking them to participate.”_ I’d further this with brand building is a subset of the strategy programme. Normal flow: agree on strategy, map GTM comms/BD plan, run it, adjust. Partner meetings come in the later parts. The eUSD fintech rev-share idea is exciting, but the plan and components need clarity. How do we persuade the market of the merits? What support is required from CC or ABC Labs? What can be mobilized from the 390 eUSD stakers, the wider RSR community, and the two current fintech partners? One question I’ve been thinking about is what is eUSD’s differentiated value proposition for Fintech’s? - Seamless yield on wallet balances without staking hoops? - Proven resilience through volatile markets and black swans? - Decentralized governance with automated onchain operations that reduce operating costs, are fully verifiable and shield distributors from a regulator “stablecoin issuer” classification? - Market leading stablecoin yield (potentially boosted with RSR rewards)? - OR is it something else entirely? Food for thought. [Previous page](https://forum.reserve.org/t/eusd-revenue-share-historical-view/1226.md?page=1)