[IP] eUSD Revenue Share Programme Update 21-05-2026

[ham]

Summary

An update to the existing ongoing proposal of sharing eUSD Revenue with participating fintechs, Ugly Cash and Sentz. The proposed proposal, if enacted, would update the Revenue Share in order to maintain compliance with the rules of the original revenue share proposal and the subsequent revenue share update proposal which saw 10% of Fintech Revenues redirected to stRSR holders.

Original Revenue Share Programme Proposal.

Fintech Revenue Share Adjustment (90/10) Proposal.

Problem Statement

The eUSD Revenue Share Programme distributes revenue to participating fintechs using a rules-based and predictable framework, with allocations determined by relative eUSD balances at biweekly snapshot intervals. Revenue predictability is important to fintech participants, who rely on stable and transparent distributions when integrating eUSD into their products and planning incentives.

Over time, changes in eUSD supply and balance distribution cause revenue shares to drift from those ratified through governance vote. Without periodic updates, this drift creates misalignment.

Rationale

This proposal updates revenue shares strictly in line with the existing programme rules on a biweekly cadence. Until a revised Revenue Share Programme is ratified, updates will continue under this standard to preserve predictability, minimise governance overhead and maintain confidence for all participants.

Snapshot

The percentages are calculated based on the amount of eUSD the Fintech Apps are holding relative to the eUSD Market Cap. The data and formulas used to generate the tables above can be inspected here.

Timeline

Risks

The degree of eUSD overcollateralisation depends on several factors including collateral basket APY, the amount of RSR staked, the price of RSR and the share of revenue directed to stRSR.

Under the previous programme, 100% of revenue generated from fintech-held balances was allocated to fintech participants. As fintech balances grew relative to non-fintech balances, the share of revenue flowing to stRSR declined, reducing staking APY for RSR stakers.

Lower staking yields could lead some stakers to reduce or exit their positions, decreasing the amount of RSR securing eUSD and increasing tail risk in the event of a collateral default. The recently ratified 90/10 revenue split mitigates this by directing a portion of fintech-generated revenue to stRSR holders, strengthening incentives for RSR staking and better aligning fintech growth with system security.

Operational risks also exist around wallet submissions used to calculate and distribute revenue share. Fintechs submit both balance wallets and a designated revenue wallet for streaming payments. If balance wallets are incomplete or incorrect, revenue share calculations could be inaccurate. Likewise, if a revenue wallet is submitted incorrectly, revenue could be streamed to the wrong address. These risks are mitigated by requiring fintechs to confirm submitted wallets, with all balances publicly verifiable on-chain at any time.

[R72]

This proposal is the logical consequence of the FinTech Revenue Share Program and the recent arrangement on the 90/10 yield split between stakers and Fintechs. Proposed updated distribution percentages are correct. Will vote in favor.

[Teeb]

Clearly no one’s really interested in contributing here? Perhaps this is not the right medium or perhaps community has just lost interest in Reserve?

Why don’t we explore better institutional partnerships, clearly the team is not delivering. Uglycash isn’t really meaningfully growing its minting of $eUSD, forget Sentz, I think we should explore alternatives and better fintechs across the board.

Who actually own $eUSD’s success? Is this products strategy owned by CC/Reserve? If so, why the lack of focus and attention?

is it going to be replaced by the upcoming $BTC/Gold Yield DTF? Not sure how stable this would be for traditional finance applications.

2 years later, we’re still at $20M eUSD, it’s quite embarrassing.

keen to know more

[Teeb]

Will vote to reduce the share to fintechs for sure if they aren’t delivering. The rebalancing IMO should also work in the 90/10 Split if majority of revenue is flowing to fintechs, they should be staking RSR and their RSR should be majority up for rebalancing

[ham]

This proposal has been moved onchain. The Request for Comments period has ended.

Link to onchain proposal: Reserve app | DTFs

@Teeb Thanks for your comments. As the eUSD Champion I can add some colour to most of the questions in your posts but I’m travelling for the majority of this week and the next and would prefer to give it the time it deserves. Please bear with me and i’ll get back to you towards the end of the week.

[R72]

Voted in favor. Onchain transaction: https://etherscan.io/address/0x26f270ea78149671e55cfa90a0fe6d5cdaa708c4

[0xd15co]

Hi Teeb,

This RFC is specifically an update to the FinTech Revenue Share Program that the community has already discussed and voted in favor of. It’s not the appropriate place to reopen the broader discussion about how the program itself should work.

If you’re not satisfied with the current implementation, you’re more than welcome to create your own RFC detailing your proposed changes or alternative approach. But you need to be specific about what exactly should change, why it should change, and how you propose it should work instead. That gives us something concrete to review and vote on, and I am happy to join that discussion.