Snapshots will be taken on the 1st of every month and the following updates are needed:
Ugly Cash: 4.1%
Sentz: 3.2%
stRSR: 92.7%
Ugly Cash destination address:
0x12ec148a193BA7b3a141ce6d02AdE326883d28D9
Sentz destination address:
0x2e3F334f9035aAB204347508415dEc785cd5075E
Abstract:
eUSD should share underlying revenue with distribution partners, starting with fintech apps, who use and promote eUSD for their customers.
Problem Statement:
An experiment to grow eUSD
Rationale:
Continuing to support the initial proposal and this could lead to the revenue for governance being overall higher in the long term even though it means giving up some yield right now.
How are the % calculated? are they fixed or changing periodically? if yes to changing periodically, how does that work? appreciate any data you can share. thank you!
Also curious about this…
I see the percentages going to Sentz and Ugly, however those are a percentage of what, Total Yield?
s there a breakdown of the proposed yield structure after these changes?
The Rev share vote update says that “following updates are needed” so I’m not sure if it’s complete?
Does this mean if someone mints a considerable amount of EUSD they too could recieve this benefit?
Why not just give some of the yield directly back to the minters as the protocol is intended to do? I can understand there’s a community advocacy element to this that simple distribution wouldn’t necessary cover.
I think it needs more clarity on %. I think this % should be correlated to the amount of eUSD is minted by each fintech or some similar idea. And how do we know the volume or amount minted by each fintech? I am in favor of any proposal to grow eUSD as it’s MC has not grown at all in the past months.
Afaik the ratios depend on the amount of eUSD held vs eUSD total in these wallets. There’s a Google sheet and we check the eligibile addresses monthly atm. (maybe every other week in the future).
Without having the methodology and supporting data explained in the RFC I dont think I would vote in support. Sufficient explanations help grow the governance community and participation.
Agreed with James. Right now those % are all very vague. Ratios could be a good start. Those ratios should involve a community vote as well. Community will start to realise they need to participate when they get their % cut and suffer with those decisions. Right now it’s early to tell. I voted yes even being all unclear because I really want the MC to grow. I don’t care if a Fintech gets a high % as long as they are growing the MC substantially. eUSD MC have been flat for one year. I really think the community will only grow if we get those staking rewards to the roof.
The ratios are very easy to calculate yourself. In the responses to the original proposal the two registered FinTech apps Ugly Cash and Sentz both submitted the addresses where they hold eUSD. If you sum up the amounts there and put them in relation to the total amount you get the ratios in the proposal.
Here are the current ratios as a screenshot from a Google Sheet, e.g.
The amount have changed by 0.2-0.3% since the last update. Should StableLab submit a proposal to update the rev share percentages now or rather once a month?
Sentz: was 3.2% is 3.4%
Ugly Cash: was 4.1% is 4.4%
I think it makes sense to change the frequency from bi-weekly to monthly. Feels frequent enough to reflect (also potentially much larger) changes in the ratios soon enough, but at the same time reduces the (overhead due to the somewhat administrative and manual) governance tasks by 50%. Also, gas fees are not that high right now, but that may change and it could keep RSR stakers from voting if the current frequency remains in place.
