I would like to get thoughts from the community and/or feedback from the team regarding evaluating alternatives to the rewards claiming mechanism that is currently in place for staking/market participation/Ada incentives. Currently this is all managed through Sundae swap and each week rewards are made available to claim but a fee of 2.25 ₳ is collected by Sundae swap. Give price appreciation of ₳ from the lows of $0.26USD to current prices $1.15USD this represent a weekly claim fee increase from ~$0.60USD to the current fee of ~$2.25USD. I can see this as a bottle neck for future lenders and LQ stakers since the cost of claiming rewards has dramatically increased. I know the call that you can claim a couple of weeks worth of rewards together, but it still doesn’t fix the fact that overall fees to claims rewards is climbing. Has the team looked at alternatives, discussed with Sundae swap or other alternatives to reduce potential growth bottlenecks that this could represent…
If ₳ gets to all time highs of $3.00USD as a bookend the claim fee will be around $6.75USD… I’ve been meaning to do some rough calls of what a lender or stake would need to supply capital to just offset the claim costs but wanted to drop this here for conversation. Also to see what user activity is onchain to see who is claiming rewards and at what frequency.
Hey @uscmigs I inquired about this back in December with SundaeSwap. Pi wrote back Discord. I pinged him again today.
@FlorianVolery mentioned a Liqwid solution, pending priorities already at hand.
At current prices and based on the last user distribution rewards. Discord
A $2.25 claim fee would be more than 712 wallets earned from the distribution of 1/3 of the wallets. And/or about 945 wallets earn less than that a week. So roughly 40% of all wallets would need a week’s rewards to claim at current prices.
I am not sure of a solution other than lowering the fee and what impact that is on Sundae’s system. Vs, a customized reward system that has lower to no fees.<-- if Liqwid were to build this, it would take resources, a solution to fund that may be, the Fee stays to pay of an inhouse system and reduces overtime?
Great discussion topic @uscmigs thanks for posting it.
Yeah given flat fixed pricing and price appreciation this along with just using ₳ for anything with minUTXO fees is going to get costly fast. Just wanted to raise the flag on this as if something could be done in house. Fees can be redirected to the DAO/Protocol, etc… although I don’t have an idea of the scope/effort/resources to manage the claims. It looks like an easy way to shift a user cost which has no tangible benefit to the protocol to an improved (ie reduced user cost that can promote growth to lending markets/stakers) and allow the DAO/protocol to collect fees for protocol usage rather than to leak to 3rd parties.