Fee Generation and the SSM

Since our launch on 3/20, our protocol has generated roughly ~$60,000 USDC and ~$4,000 in COMP tokens on only two trial markets.

As we move forward with additional markets, this fee generation will likely continue to increase, leading to the immediate need to address any potential fee accrual.

As introduced in the past: The SWIV Token, Swivel DAO & The SSM | by Julian Traversa | Swivel Finance | Medium

The SSM intends to provide SWIV stakeholders the ability to backstop risk on our protocol by staking their SWIV (with the risk of liquidation on a massive shortfall event). It of course then makes sense to attempt to distribute protocol revenues to these stakeholders.

This has been seen in the past in the case of Aave’s security module, and similar modules have recently been suggested across numerous projects, namely MonetSupply’s new MKR tokenomics revamp proposal (stkMaker) : stkMKR: Maker Staking and Tokenomics Revision - #2 by Davidutro - Proposal Ideas - The Maker Forum

With that said, there are numerous options available (feel free to make additional suggestions):

  1. Buyback and burn:
    - This is the simplest option, however provides the least benefit to SSM holders over general SWIV holders, and also may risk regulatory concerns in certain jurisdictions where it may be construed as a general dividend.
    - In general buyback and burns tend not to energize communities quite as much either. I would actually look to makers current tokenomics as an example, though I personally am a very big fan of buybacks and burns as they provide significant tax advantages

  2. Buyback and Distribute to SSM:
    - Likely the most empowering for the community as it ensures SWIV stays within the ecosystem, and furthers the governance influence of the stakeholders that are contributing to our protocols success
    - Could provide vested tokens

  3. Distribute fees directly to SSM:
    - Avoids potential issues with SWIV auctions and purchases on the open market. With current liquidity, our monthly fee generation would significantly impact prices (likely doubling or tripling them with current liquidity pool curves)
    - Requires additional action should stakeholders wish to further their influence within the SWIV ecosystem, and in general incentivizes funds leaving the ecosystem

  4. ??? Your suggestion!

1 Like

i think if a part of fees of platform can be used to buyback and distribute it to SSM , it is best way to establish investors confidence and if veSWIV stakeholders can get discount on fees , it is wonderful. that is my question. just like curve . thanks sir

I think we need another way to get new users. We need burns and buybacks, but more importantly, we need Swivel to be used. I like 3.

I think in the first step combining all the options can be effective and create amazing results.
Of course, the percentage of each option is important.
But my main suggestion is to combine SWIV with another project!
I mean combining with projects that have a common product and we have more overlap.
The combination of two or more governance tokens and their stake increases the credibility of the products.
In this way, investors enter investment and savings with the credit of each project.

1 Like