gm, have enjoyed following the discussion here and over on the Q2 Report post 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 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 @rspa_StableLab 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.