RGP-1: Ribbon Vaults Fee Recipient

Proposals
21

I support this proposal and generally like moving in the direction of rewarding depositors that stay in the vaults longer. But as others have mentioned, in the long run I would still prefer that some of the fee gets captured by ribbon directly into the treasury in order to support future development and operations.

Not sure what the right split is at equilibrium - maybe 75/25 fee split between LPs/ribbon treasury - but that is something we could address down the line. In the near term I think the priority should be on incentivizing quality, longer-term-minded LPs into the vaults, and therefore support this proposal.

1 Like
22

A few others have mentioned funding a treasury with the idea of longevity and paid devs. This proposal having been written by Julian, leads me to believe changing fee / rewards in the way proposed would not be in conflict with sustainability.

I’ve hung around a few governance forums and thought about how each finance app could pass on 100% of the returns or performance of their products to their users while also funding a treasury. This proposal isn’t the place for it, so I’ll be brainstorming ideas and maybe a place to share them.

I am in favor of this proposal.

23

Support this - reward the diamond hands.

24

I agree this proposal. Fees should back to vaults.

25

I support this, given we currently don’t have the ability to split the fees with a smart contract.

26

Agree…Looks like the best option for ecosystem users

27

RE: using fees to incentivize the RBN token in some way:

I could be convinced about this in the future. However right now RBN is not transferable (so we could not implement this change). Additionally we don’t know enough about the v2 vaults and how the tokens interact

I think it makes sense to go with this proposal for now, and perhaps revisit the idea once RBN is transferable and we know a bit more about how it works

1 Like
28

Agree. In for the long game.

29

Thanks for all the feedback, especially @Julian-Swivel @freddycoen @Praneeth @pete_msc @Sebastian_Bach and others.

Agree with your points about protocol revenue. My main motivations for this proposal are:

  • We are currently VC backed, and don’t need the protocol revenue to survive
  • We are extremely early, and would rather incentivize growth/adoption over fee extraction
  • We definitely plan to revamp the whole fee model at some point to something like a performance-fee, instead of exit fee. So redirecting the exit fee back to the vaults felt like a simple change to the vaults to test governance.

We can rethink the fee model and value accrual to RBN at some point in the future, but hoping we can start with this small change for now :slight_smile:

6 Likes
30

:eyes:
New topic so probably better not to get into it here but would love to see the conversation behind this publicly when the time comes.

Sounds like the plan is to add a “number go up” incentive to stay in the pool w/ performance fees instead of “number go down” game theory disincentive (to exit) with exit fees.

Theres probably a big and interesting conversation surrounding where this might have overarching effects. (though like youre saying, probably a future discussion)

1 Like
31

In my opinion the best solution would be to direct this money to a system where the longer you’ve been on the vault the more money you get (similar to ampleforth’s geyser contracts), that way the incentives to stay in the vault would be even stronger, as if you leave you’d have to restart the counter.

However such a system requires extra development so I agree with this proposal.

32

I think the change is good more money more time.