Based on this temp check discussion (Generate DAO Revenue) I propose the DAO implement multiple fees to begin generating revenue for the DAO.
The first method would be to implement a 0.5 ada fee on every transaction through the platform, including claiming rewards, staking, depositing, withdrawing, etcetera. Ada generated through this fee would be sent to the DAO Treasury.
The second method would be to increate the 2% fee on CDP withdrawal and SP ada rewords to 2.25%. the 2% will continue to go to the Indy stakers while the additional 0.25% will be sent to the DAO Treasury.
Should the DAO implement these revenue generating mechanisms?
I believe these numbers may be lower than the DAO could and may need to charge, however the primary goal here is to get the mechanisms in place. I believe in the future we will have many spirited debates on what these fees should be set at. I have intentionally set them low so that they might have minimum impact when implemented. I think these should both be passed in a single poll as we do not know the feasibility of either of these, one might be quicker to implement than the other. They are also complimentary, the first generates a consent revenue through all user interactions while the second capitalizes on the volume of ada in the system.
Good suggestion on first method, but I have to vote no. I do not think any action potentially slowing/hindering protocol growth (percentage fee increase from 2 to 2.25%) should be taken at this stage of the protocol - CDP volume is a far more important metric than DAO revenue right now.
Although generating revenue for the DAO certainly sound exiting the treasury was well funded (>USD 4 million, a lot of runway before we need to get concerned) with the purpose of being spent to fuel protocol growth. Rewards (incl. DAO revenue) will be reaped later and I can only urge more patience - think marshmallow test.
Additionally as stated in the temp check, there already is a mechanism to earn ADA from CDP liquidations for the DAO via staking DAO INDY in the protocol (because the DAO is not voting the INDY rewards for voters would not be changed). Without any reason why existing mechanisms are not adequate, further resources (and opportunity cost taking time away from devs on other prio tasks) should imo not be spent.
EDIT: I think DAO Revenue could be a great topic to give the PWG a first shot at to come up with strategies and scenarios.
In my view the poll should be split between the 2 distincts proposal. You are asking to vote Yes or No for a « or » proposal. The poll shall come with a firm proposal on which voters can voice their opinion.
Arguably the treasury’s value is significantly lowered as even just a chunk of it being sold on the market would crash it. The Indigo token does not have enough liquidity for us to consider it as a proper treasury.
As mentioned by the temp check those funds are locked and we do not have any estimate as to when they will be unlocked. The goal is to start generating revenue in Ada, so that when we do have to make large payments they do not have a negative effect on the markets. Also, the DAO would have to use its stake to start generating rewards, So I will be interested to learn how we vote on how the DAO will vote on a proposal every 90 days to keep up with that. We should also consider that staking the DAO treasury to gain those rewards would have a significant impact on Indy stakers as the DAO would control most of the pool, and thus gain most of the rewards. The impact would be much greater than just adding a 0.25% fee on withdrawals.
Yes, patience is important, but we cannot keep kicking this can down the road hoping that someone will eventually find a solution. These solutions are taken and adapted from many existing projects who collect fees, they are not novel or complex. I would have loved to include more information on the opportunity costs but no one from the Indigo team was willing to provide any feedback so we just do not know. We currently do not have a PWG, and have no idea really what they will be working on. I’m sure they will discuss revenue generation at some point, and that they would be able to better develop strategies and scenarios if they had some data to work off.
I do appreciate your concern and debated that myself. I think the two solution compliment each other well. I do not think we have to choose between one or the other, but I understand now that is is more than likely the DAO only wants only one, if either. I will not be submitting this poll to an official vote, though others are still free to do so. I might make them into separate polls later in the week. If anyone’s got better ideas for the numbers as submitted to a poll I encourage them to do so.
Even though I like this proposal, I voted against moving forward on it. Personally I think we should take our time and try to get the revenue model correct from the beginning. With the discussion board still going on and the creation of the PWG, I think we should postpone voting on anything at the moment.
Maybe i missed something but there are already multiple fees for, as i far as i experienced, all actions/transactions… when you claim rewards, when you close CDP, when you withdraw excessive collateral, when you add to the stability or remove from stability pool… so before voting i think it would be good first to get all existing fees/commissions in one list to have an overview of what is already charged, where it goes and then decide what else is needed on top or any change to the existing charges should be done.
There is a 2% withdrawal fee and a handful of other fees that are redirected to Indy stakers. There are also network fees. Currently there are no fees that generate revenue for the DAO.