TL-DR:Enable StakeDAO to use Quest for their sdCRV locker.
Our recent discussions with StakeDAO have accelerated our brainstorming as they have offered to use our Quest infrastructure for sdCRV. This would mean that StakeDAO would host a front end of Quest and manage its own client pipeline, and we would simply be in charge of infrastructure management.
We believe that StakeDAO and Paladin can grow together with a more tight knitted relationship than simple partners. Thanks to their feedback we have been able to create a framework for future partnerships, but they have also become a relay point for us to test out some new features.
Providing StakeDAO with our gauge acquisition mechanism will enable us to grow in multiple ways. Most notably, 8,000,000 veCRV in the lockers would now be able to participate in Quests, and sell/buy boosts on Warden.
As such, and for the fact that they have gone out of their way to collaborate since launch, we would like to create a unique deal with a slightly revamped fee sharing system of a 25% base fee streamed to them, upwards of 50%, tiered in the following manner:
Update in the Quest codebase (already done)
Once deployed, the fee sharing system are not revocable;
Full support, no brainer for me that Paladin & Stake DAO should be close partners. I am in favor of a fee sharing system quickly converging to 50% for this launch partner. Warden & Liquid lockers can start working synergistically on CRV today and unlock massive added value but what if this would just be the first veToken?
I agree with the approach. It makes sense to partner up with StakeDAO to access their large user base and potentially later also incite them to use the Warden Market for veBoost.
Does that mean that the conditions of the fee sharing agreement will never get re-assessed?
I’m confused as well by the tiers. Is it a default 25% kickback up to 500k$ (weekly?) and then 30% between 500k and 1m$ and 50% between 1m and 1.5m$? if so, what if greater than 1.5m$? Is it cappedat an even 50-50 split?
As mentioned in the framework proposal, I’m in favor of the launch partner in general, but I still think that specific advantages such as free integration and 5x floor on the fees sharing should have a minimum weekly volume to show some commitment to the partnership.
Btw, it’s concerning to see that no one from the Stake DAO participated to this discussion or the previous one about the framework, or even made this proposal, especially since it’s the main project concerned by the launch partners for now as you said. An estimation of the first weeks volume would have been good to know too.
We have been following this conversation very closely, and the reason we didn’t directly step in was that we were willing to find the best mutually beneficial solution before launching a hot debate in the public domain.
Stake DAO is a huge believer in Quest. We really like Paladin’s approach to liquid governance, and we believe it is highly synergetical with our lockers. We were planning to develop our own solution as you know very well, but in the end, we figured out that strengthening our bonds with Paladin and joining forces to support a great protocol, for which there are many other areas of potential synergies in the future, was more interesting than enjoying the full share of our own in-house bribing solution. Furthermore, we believe that there is a natural fit between Paladin and Stake DAO, potentially much stronger than with other protocols in the bribe ecosystem, as both DAOs share the same value of decentralisation, and believe a fair market is the key to DeFi’s sustainability.
Since we have discussed with the team and agreed on the fact that, if governance would allow it, we would partner on this, we pushed many protocols to use Quest. You can already see that this is bearing fruits, and we received many more confirmation of interest. The market is huge, and we believe that joining forces on the sales & marketing front makes complete sense.
Please let me know if you have any further questions to help you understand the value of this joint effort to make Quest the number 1 solution for liquid governance in defi.
Hey thanks for answering,
It’s good to know you’ve been following the discussion, but even if privates conversations can be helpful for technicalities, I believe that negotiations on the partnership terms should always happen on governance when it’s possible.
I can’t agree more on this as I explained you these synergies a few weeks ago, and again, I’m for this integration, but the decided terms shouldn’t be unfair compared to the PUR-3 voted.
Also it would really be nice to have an estimation of the volume that would be generated for this iteration. I’m not asking for a precise amount, but i guess that if Stake DAO plans to add SDT rewards, you probably have an idea of the amount, and if you’re planing that the quest rewards will mostly come from partners, they probably have an idea of the amount too.
Even if i should probably elaborate on this considering your actions on the past days, i’ll focus on asking more information and explaining my point.
I agree on that, and the partnership should also be fair compared to the framework voted:
According to the PUR-3 recently voted, partners should enjoy the profit sharing from 5 to 50% with a minimum of 50K$ of weekly volume.
The proposal for the launch partner is about increasing the profit sharing floor to 25% which can make sense, and remove the minimum, which makes very little sense imo.
To reach 25% of fees sharing, the regular partners will need to reach 750K$ of weekly volume, however in the previous post, I suggested to have a floor of 150-200k for the volume which is around 4x less than the regular partners conditions, so it seems pretty fair while ensuring a certain commitment from Stake DAO, what do you think ?
Moreover, I believe that you should easily reach these amounts and above, but a better idea of the upcoming volumes would be useful to confirm that.
Yes it’s really nice too see new protocols coming to Quest, and to know that you’re getting more interest, which comfort me in the idea that you should easily manage to reach a minimum weekly volume.
Sure , my questions not about understanding the value of this partnership but more about the terms:
First as mentioned above, can you share an estimation of the first weeks volume to help estimate the reach of this partnership ?
Also let me know your thoughts on a reduced minimum volume as launch partners ?
Finally, it was discussed on the PUR-3 that a period should be defined to upgrade the fees sharing as it can be complicated to update it weekly if a Quest is longer, do you have a proposition on the period duration ?
Ok, the point of having a 50/50 split was to align the interest of both partners in bringing volume through Paladin.
You know very well that the level of volumes you ask is nothing close to short term, even medium term realistic estimates. If you computes the numbers, we have currently 8.5m veCRV, out of which 3.5m go to Alchemix. This means 5m veCRV for the rest of users. If you include Stake DAO’s POL, and other protocols, the actual amount we are looking for currently is around 4m bribable veCRV. At $0.01 per vote, this means a maximum of 40k$ weekly volume.
What you’re asking for, is basically that we try to reach the threshold for a decent fee sharing with our own bribes, so basically that Stake DAO pays to reach the decent partnership.
This is obviously not acceptable.
I regret that you don’t see the value of this partnership and try to get a bad agreement for Stake DAO.
Fortunately, I think the governance discussion highlighted the fact that the rest of the community is rather optimistic on this partnership, as is the Stake DAO community. Looking forward to see the results of the vote.
I actually don’t know which is why I asked some estimations, I was only able to make assumptions until now.
For exemple I assumed that Alchemix might reward a quest on your integration, considering that they might get back a huge part of the rewards while incentivizing users to deposit on the LL, also Stake DAO might decide to bribe to get more vote on their pools, and as you mentioned that others projects are also interested, they might do the same.
That’s true, however the market can fluctuate, same as the amount of veCRV controlled by the LL which should only increase over time.
Not necessarily, as mentioned above SD partners could might also create quests ?
I know very well the value on this partnership, and not sure how a 4x lower threshold that any other partner can have to get 5x more fees is a bad agreement.
Also if you think that what I proposed is impossible, one possible solution could be to start with a threshold that is fine for SD and add a lower tranche for the fees sharing.
what do you have in mind for this?
I think what Figue proposed: 25% below 500k, increasing to up to 50% above $1.5m is pretty sensible.
Tbh I struggle to understand the idea of a threshold here since it’s all proportional. If we bring very low volume, we will have very low fee sharing. It’s not as if there was a fix fee.
One solution could be to lower the fees share below 500k$ to 10-15% if no threshold maybe, which is still more than regular partners, or worst case, the floor should at least be the same than regular partners if 25% fees sharing mini is kept, so 50K$ weekly volume.
Yes that’s why I mentioned the period earlier, because if a quest last several weeks, it’s not possible to update the fees sharing each week as it’s fully paid upfront. However as the votes on Curve happens each week, it’s a good way to quantify the activity on Quests, and the general amount of rewards can be divided by the amount of weeks.
I think 1 month period was mentioned in PUR3 by the Paladin core team
It also goes further than simply Quest evangelization. I think there is a lot of addition layers and collaborations that can be explored with the lockers. As @Le_Tube mentioned, it makes a lot of sense to create a framework incentivizing coperation. I think this is the right a approach and 72% of DAO members seem to agree right now.