OIP-16 Platform Fees & Claiming Process

OctoFi

Hey Octonauts,

As we get closer to platform fee collections, we've considered the best ways to distribute collected funds to you, while making it easy to claim.

Our proposed method is as follows:

Funds will be collected in a stablecoin such as USDC, DAI
You will be able to claim your respective share of all fees generated by our platform
You need to stake at least 1 OCTO during a given period of time, where the fees are collected, to be eligible for claiming in that period.
The amount you stake during that period, determines your share of the fees collected
The OCTO staking amount is limited initially to 100 OCTO and can be adjusted by OIPs, to promote fairness and broader participation in the beginning.
You will be able to claim the fees in the crypto asset of your choice.

Just a reminder that nothing is set in stone and can be changed using OIPs, or you can also suggest different ideas on our corresponding governance discussion: (include specific den.octo.fi link)

We will include them in another OIP round if required.

Cost: Nil
Question: Do you like this idea for fee distributions?

Best wishes,

Dr Octavius.

Vote Options:

I like the idea for fee distributions
Don't like it, providing feedback via forum
I don't know, do what's best for the project

Vote here: https://app.octo.fi/#/tools/governance/octofi/proposal/QmaqrJttHN3KSQaeM1t3Q9K6tVva3vhUXk3Pq7aq2tFygo

CFow

AkadoSang Positive spin on 100 OCTO limit: there will be more wallets created as most larger holders will diversify over multiple wallets.

Also, I believe it is proposed that fees are proportional to staked amount:

OctoFi The amount you stake during that period, determines your share of the fees collected

AkadoSang

Like the Fee Distribution, just don't agree with how it was proposed.

Holders that have more at stake get more. Like on any other project. Also don't agree with the minimum 1 OCTO. Holders should just receive fees proportionally to the amount they stake. That simple. No one will be tying up capital on something not to have the rewards.. No one will take the risk and the opportunity cost just to make it fair to the majority that often leech on projects. Those that have more at stake, risk more, have bigger incentives to contribute, etc.

So:

Make it proportional to amount staked
No limits

Active holders that stake will already benefit from it. Usually 60-80% supply is staked and there's a float of 20-40%, meaning that will revert in favour to those who stake.

That is my suggestion.

Joinboin

The first thought of octo is freedom. When we need to stake its feels the opposite of freedom. But I can inmage that holding a period of time is better when someone make a big transaction and take the octo fore 5 minutes to recash the fee or somting in that trant. But from me, one big point principle is freedom of choice at every moment. And
it deserve a place on the manifesto.

IdlePaleAle

Joinboin i'm not against staking as long as it gives the holders flexibility in when to withdraw it. Requiring staking in order to share the fee makes sense for practical reason, otherwise lost tokens might constantly get a cut of the fee, deposits on cex will also get fee which may or may not be distributed to the users, and tokens get transferred back and forth it would impossible to calculate how much fee each holder is entitled to if not staked.

CFow

Joinboin IMO will be much easier to track fees/staked amount than fees/current holders as the latter changes so frequently.

Freedom of choice is happening right now. We are all choosing what we would like to see by discussing and voting it in 😀

DeFi_King

There should be no limits to the staking. High risk should be rewarded with higher rewards. There is no reason to hold more than 100 OCTO, if you don't receive more rewards from there on.

chubbs

I like the idea for fee distributions

How often would one be able to collect the fees? I kind of like the idea were one can collect the fees once a month and must stake for at least 90% of the month in order to receive the fees. This way people have some time at the beginning of the month to adjust their position and allow them to stake the amount of Octo that they want. Also prevents people from abusing the system.

As for the limiting to 100 Octo maybe you can do it only for the month of Feebruary to celebrate the launch of this feature, but after Feebruary do not limit the amount of Octo as it has the potential to push holders out of the project.

DelinquentMind

As for the minimum staking amount, philosophically I think there shouldn't be one to improve inclusivity, but if there is a technical hurdle IMO I think 100 is fine. We also do need to look at the numbers, total fees, and how they breakdown, something which the team has probably modelled already to a degree.

Regarding the staking period, here we do need something that makes sense, I think being able to flit in and out and still take % of fees is not workable and runs counter to the whole point.

I think the fee structure itself is fine as a starting point, as we'll know more once everything is up and running. However, it would be good to have as part of the proposal on fees how often they will be reassessed.

CFow

DelinquentMind Agreed. Both on the minimum (1 Octo) requirement and also staking duration. Other than high gas fee distribution, I can't see (from my angle) why the minimum is necessary. What length of staking periods would you like to see?

Joinboin

CFow yes, I staked in wbind and therefore I cant sell for a period of time. And if thats required for reward fee. I dont feel free, even if you al vote positive

DelinquentMind

CFow The only problem I could see from having a low staking minimum is that the rewards become too diluted. The disincentivices big holders who could have a bigger impact on the platform/token. I'd need to look at numbers though.

Staking period, good question. The idea would be to stop people from jumping out to trade the coin, so it needs to be enough to hurt. Needs some thought, but it would have to be 2 wks at least I think. Two weeks from staking date, and then once you unstake there also needs to be a delay. Or, the longer you are staked, the bigger the rewards (I like this model). trading is just more profitable if you get it right, but the system needs to disincentivise it for stakers just enough.

Devs?

AkadoSang

DelinquentMind rewards are proportional to amount of holdings. No one gets dilluted. Not to mention there's always 40-20% of supply unstaked meaning that reverts in favour of those who stake. No need to lock tokens for 2 weeks.

Just make it simple. Don't screw up after all the hard work with dumb mechanics.

CFow

DelinquentMind Agreed. Took some time to think on this and a 1 Octo limit will help avoid dilution. I thought it would exclude small baggers but the price is still reachable for most looking to invest.

Two weeks seems reasonable for me for staking period. Also, it make sense if you are choosing to stake for longer periods, you should receive a larger %. More risk, more reward.

Suomikai

I agree 100 OCTO Staking limitation bad idea. I also suggest OCTO holding duration is one of the elements that define how much are you receiving ,

AkadoSang

Well and what does more wallets bring to the table if they're not unique users? Also 100 OCTO per wallet means holders need to make 10 wallets per 1000 OCTO which is a lot and unnecessary. Doesn't make sense to be that low. Not practical at all.

Holders just want their rewards, period. No need to overcomplicate. Make it simple: stake it, get the rewards, done.

CFow

AkadoSang Just a stat some people look at. Overall though, not very much added. Agreed.

DeFi_King

AkadoSang Agreed. Make it simple, so everyone understands it. No need for unnecessary mechanics, just plain and easy. No limits, no locks. By introducing all sorts of unnecessary, limiting mechanisms, you only ensure that you limit the amount of people that are interested in using the platform.

ciko85

AkadoSang So you mean no staking needed just holding?

DelinquentMind

AkadoSang When I said diluted, I meant that if you have many many small holders you are reducing the incentive for bigger holders, but forget this point.

I do disagree with the no lockup period. What's to stop someone staking, and then in a pump dumping their tokens and rebuying, adding to volatility? This undermines the point of staking. There needs to be a cost, this isn't something new. Either you're invested in the platform and you get a reward, or you're a trader, it can't be both with the same stack.

CFow

Joinboin imo freedom is the ability to choose to hold/sell or stake. Staking and LP rewards will help the community overall. Not just the individual holder. So, I think we all need to take step back and look at the bigger picture. In your opinion, why will the Hold approach be a better option for the community as a whole?

jav555888

I saw with Balancer, a big whale came in early on and milked all the rewards by depositing large amounts squeezing out smaller players, I'm not opposed to a limit. But how would it be inforced, couldn't you just make a lot of wallets of 100 Octo?

CFow

jav555888 Agreed. I'd love to avoid this. Initially let everyone test out this fee distribution so they can choose to invest more while the price is still reachable for most.

Icebags

I dont like the Octo staking limit of 100 tokens. I know you want to slow down the whales, but 100 tokens is only 4500-5000 usd. You dont have to be a whale to make that kind of Investment. A limit is fine, but make it 200-400 tokens.

I agree there has to be some kind of staking to be eligible for fees. I dont like the stake/unstake time locks.
What if to be eligible for fees for any given day, you would have to stake tokens for that 24 hour period. This gives us the opportunity to unstake/stake but we would have to wait for a 'new' day to start. And i would prefer a weekly payout.