It’s not a more complex one, this framework only takes into account the volume instead of also taking into account the longer they’ve been using quest or their available budget, imo this is not a reason for a fees drop, when you start using a dapp long term it’s because it’s better than others.
Yes this is a similar framework than V1, but as you said, the framework was irrealistic for the market state, so maybe we should try with reasonable numbers before saying that it doesn’t work
A framework is not made to be mobile, but to create rules and have a structure.
60% cash back are for projects who would do 2M weeky, which is the current bi weekly bribe market as you mentioned earlier.
It seems pretty obvious that we would not reach this amount anytime soon, but better plan it for bull market days, in case the bribe market is growing again in the coming years.
It seems ok to me to say Ecosystem partners have 2.5% fees no matter the amount and projects with more than the entire market get 2% if they use Quest as I said above, so it would not give more to projects with millions than ecosystem partners, and if there are projects capable of reaching this it’s the ecosystem partners, which would then be eligible for the 2% fees.
Ok this is real issue, I remember that we discussed about implementing an automated way when voting on PPP1, is it still planed ?
Would it be technically possible to have collect all the fees, compare the weekly volume to the framework, calculate and send the fees for each project ?
Agree, and we could eventually remove some intermediary steps if you think there is too much, but same conditions for everyone besides ecosystem partners seems fair.
wdym by no recurrence ? for the more categories, it’s only taking into account 1 variable, their weekly volume, when you proposal also take the time since using quest, and it split clients between rich and poor basically, protocols with big projects will pay less, but a small project who want to discover it will pay the maximum, and could go on votium as they charge 1% less.
Again, we could totally remove intermediary steps if there is too much
Anyone whitelisted to lock can launch a liquid wrapper, a token and incentivize the deposits. In this scenario, it doesn’t seem impossible for me that new projects reach 10% quite fast, but that doesn’t mean that the protocol is safe (not the same thing but I had Mochi in mind, can’t find back how much vlCVX they had at this time) However I do agree that we need to help create it as long as it’s legit.
The risk could be limited if we introduce an Integration request framework as the DAO could vote on new protocols integration, accepted or not as ecosystem partners. I’ve been working on a proposal to update the framework which will be shared in the coming days.