eUSD Revenue Share - Historical view

Electronic Dollar (eUSD)
21

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
image1502×154 33 KB

Here is the tx for the Revenue auction: Ethereum Transaction Hash: 0xecc9b06daa... | Etherscan
”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.

22

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?

23

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.

Also I believe sUSDS pays 4.5% and requires staking. eUSD is paying UC net 8% run rate currently, (350 basis points more than sUSDS), and no staking required. The 8% paid to UC even though eUSD’s gross is only 4.6% is due to how the eUSD rev share formula is overweighting UC’s share against their TVL, and underweighting Sentz and decaying RSR staker yield.

I added an extra table to the spreadsheet where you can see the 8% in cell R10.

Something not adding up. Appreciate your help.