Split pool fees between treasury/veswrv holders/LP's

I want to put up a proposal for splitting the swerve fees in 3 (treasury, veswrv holders, LP’s). I think this change is really important for a couple reasons: - we need more users with veswrv to be invested in the project, this will allow us to pass proposals much faster and might even be needed to pass any proposals. - this will probably happen at some point anyways, so might as well do it now if the community votes for it. - although i dont particularly care about short term swrv price, i think having incentives to lock swrv will help us to keep or increase our tvl

some maths: - according to debank our 24h trading volume is 26m - with a 0.03% fee and split 3 ways each group (treasury, veswrv, lp’s) will gain just under $1mil per year, obviously trading volume could increase as well. - currently there are 422581.14 veswrv which would receive $2.36 each per year if this was to go through - 122% pa at current prices

Compared to veCRV this apy is lower for a couple reasons: - their fee is higher and % split of the fee is higher, they can do this thanks to their huge pile of $ from dumping their team tokens - CRV price is going to get dumped hard cause of their inflation schedule so whilst you might get a higher APY the value of your underlying tokens is certainly decreasing

I disagree with splitting fees, I think all fees should go into treasury to fund dev and operations for the foreseeable future. Let me address the reasons you posted to support the split;

  1. >we need more users with veswrv to be invested in the project, this will allow us to pass proposals much faster and might even be needed to pass any proposals.

I think a far easier solution is to reduce the quorum %, I’d rather reduce the hill we have to climb over on every vote rather than think of ways to climb the hill easier.

  1. although i dont particularly care about short term swrv price, i think having incentives to lock swrv will help us to keep or increase our tvl

Everyone should care about short term swrv prices since the price determines to a large part the TVL and APY for LPs, however I disagree that we should be looking for additional token sinks ala CRV, they have a completely different tokenomics than SWRV due to their insane inflation model, importing ideas from CRV without regard to the token inflation differences doesn’t make sense.

  1. LP’s currently get rewarded with SWRV tokens, I don’t think it’s necessary to additionally reward them with admin fee share, the best thing we can do for LPs is increase SWRV token price.

  2. Right now we are two weeks into the project, giving fee revenue to veSWRV holders is saying that we can do nothing better with the money than distrbuting to token holders, that’s crazy, that’s like a startup that just raised a seed round using their revenue to give dividends to their seed round investors. Each dollar collected is better spent right now setting up the project for success. Token price will appreciate when the market can see that the project is sustainable with product shipping at a fast pace. Any short term change to build token sinks is doomed to fail if the project doesn’t start shipping product.

  3. I would not copy anything CRV is doing right now for their tokenomics, they have a completely different token inflation problem that they are trying to plug holes with.

1 Like