Abstract
This proposal aims to improve the FinTech revenue share, originally proposed here, by adjusting the changes that qualify for an on-chain proposal. A new on-chain proposal gets posted when there is a 5% relative change in the FinTech’s share of eUSD holdings. In addition, there are new operational processes suggested when a FinTech adds or removes addresses for consideration.
Problem statement
Currently, eUSD revenue share is rebalanced upon changes in FinTech balances greater than an absolute 2% of supply. In six months, this has not happened once. Still, revenue share has been adjusted once. While the balances of these FinTech apps have changed over the last six months, lack of clarity around when to adjust the percentages has led to confusion and FinTechs had no direct feedback from their holdings to incentivise them to increase holdings…
In addition, there is an operational gap when new addresses are added to FinTech addresses that are monitored. This leads to a lack of clarity and transparency in participating addresses.
Rationale
We propose changing the threshold to soften the conditions that trigger an on-chain proposal to adjust revenue share among FinTech apps:
- From an absolute 2% monthly change in market share to a relative 5% month-over-month change in eUSD balances held.
E.g., UglyCash held 3.8% of the eUSD total supply in November, and 4.5% in December. That represents an absolute 0.7% increase in market share, which would not trigger a revenue sharing rebalance under the current system. However, that 0.7% represents a relative 18% in MoM rate of change, which is above the threshold of 5% and would trigger an on-chain proposal to rebalance the revenue share for eUSD.
We also propose a new operational procedure, where FinTech apps have to announce any addition/removal of addresses participating in the revenue share through a forum post, that includes the addresses involved and a proof of ownership with a link to a signed Etherscan message or other signed message on the relevant blockchain.
Risks
This is an operational proposal and doesn’t add technical risk. Some gas usage for on-chain polls might be downstream from executing this proposal. Conversely, FinTechs would have a tighter feedback loop on eUSD held.
I am in favor of this change to the RevShare agreement:
- Yes
- No