Dear everybody,
Please find below a Temperature Check regarding protocol’s revenue and token utility.
Description
Should we use the protocol’s revenue to pay for its infrastructure costs, establish a stable treasury and share revenue with Sundae active holders ?
Context
Since the vote on Sundae Scooper Payment Agreement there is now a minimum of 49% of the protocol revenue unallocated. I believe we should use this for three things:
- To offset hosting costs for the Sundae protocol, so that it can eventually become totally self-sustaining.
- To grow a strategic reserve of stablecoins for the Sundae treasury.
- An incentive program for the SUNDAE token holders who are helping direct yield farming rewards via their delegation.
Background
Based on current projections, the Sundae protocol is expected to have a monthly revenue of around 30.7k ADA, once the 50% discount on fees wears off. The protocol is currently averaging around 250 ADA per day in protocol revenue from trades, which would be roughly 500 ADA per day once the discount wears off, or 15,000 ADA in a 30 day month. Additionally, with 6.5m ADA locked in the smart contracts, and an average monthly return on staking rewards of 0.241%, we can expect another 15700 ADA in staking rewards.
This projection has been steadily rising, and so it’s possible it will be higher by the time the discount wears off.
Based on a recently passed motion, 50% of the protocol revenue will be allocated to covering scooper costs until the protocol revenue exceeds 40,000 ADA per month. Additionally, 1% of the protocol revenue is directed to paying the treasury administrator to distributing those funds to the scooper equitably.
That leaves us with roughly 15000 ADA per month to spend, at current projection.
Sundae Labs has shared that the current AWS costs for the production environment for the Sundae protocol currently costs $4000 USD a month. They have recently been able to significantly drop these costs, and for 2 years have paid out of pocket for this infrastructure. I believe, for the protocol to be self-sutaining in the long term, it should seek to cover these costs. However, while the protocol revenue is still growing, and while we’re at a critical juncture, Sundae Labs have offered to continue to cover a portion of these costs out of pocket.
Additionally, with the recent launch and growth in TVL for the USDM stablecoin, I think it’s in the strategic best interest of the Sundae protocol and the Cardano ecosystem as a whole to acquire and grow a strategic reserve of USDM. Using other stablecoins could be discussed and decided on by later vote.
Finally, the success of our yield farming program is dependent on SUNDAE token holders who thoughtfully consider and delegate to pools in an attempt to attract liquidity.
For this reason I propose allocating 15% of the protocol revenue to each of these categories:
- 15% (projected at 4605 ADA) to be directed to Sundae Labs to offset AWS costs for hosting pieces of the Sundae protocol infrastructure.
- 15% to be directed to Sundae Labs, who will sell it for USD, and then mint USDM, and deposit that USDM into the Sundae DAO Treasury.
- 15% to be directed to Sundae Labs, who will distribute it proportionately among users who have SUNDAE locked in a position under yield farming with a delegation. Note that these SUNDAE can be placed in LP or added ‘alone’ what matters is that they are used to vote on rewarded pools.
To accomplish the above, we will raise the “allowance” parameter temporarily to 100%. The DAO can re-evaluate these thresholds as protocol revenue grows.
(Operational note: This leaves 4% of the protocol revenue unallocated; Sundae Labs has suggested that we leave some portion of the protocol revenue unallocated to simplify operational concerns, because of how rewards are withdrawn from pools with low volume.)
Decision
If enough people show interest the proposal will have two voting options:
Vote YES to approve the above parameter change and budget, and direct Sundae Labs to begin distributing protocol revenue according to this breakdown.
Vote NO to reject this proposal and leave the treasury allocations unchanged.
Are you interested in voting in an on-chain governance vote to this effect?
- Interested