# Delegate the setting of non-default taker fees to a Protocol Fee subDAO **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal Discussion\ **Tags:** passed\ **Created:** [September 11, 2023, 2:20pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323 "2023-09-11T14:20:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JohnnyWyles](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/johnnywyles/32/3114_2.png) [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2023, 2:20pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323/1 "2023-09-11T14:20:17Z")
This proposal would delegate the setting of pair-specific taker fees on Osmosis to a subDAO. ## Background Initially specified in [Proposal 530](https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/530) and implemented in [V19](https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/606), the Osmosis Taker fee is currently set to 0 with a default level able to be enabled by governance proposal. As discussed in Proposal 530, particular pairings may require a specific taker fee to be set due to liquidity requirements, market demand, or other user experience concerns. An initial user experience concern is that pools with a typically lower spread factor, such as Liquid Staked Tokens and their unstaked counterpart, pairs of stable tokens or Transmuter pools, will have their total swap fee increased significantly by implementing a global default taker fee. ## Scope The initial scope of the Protocol Fee subDAO will be to use the authorization granted by this proposal to adjust the taker fees on specific asset pairings to ensure that these are reasonable compared to the typical spread factors used in their pools. This scope is currently set to deciding on a taker fee of the default set by governance, an alternative lower taker fee of 20% of the default, or zero. When a methodology is identified for setting taker fees based on liquidity requirements, market demand, or further user experience concerns, governance will be re-approached to confirm acceptance. ## Members Membership will be in the form of a subDAO founded on Osmosis’ deployment of DAODAO located at: [osmo162wk8qc3w5s9hfs8dm76wrqnk6fjmsez2t4kk6zyugmrlzgds8sqfesmlm](https://osmosis.daodao.zone/dao/osmo162wk8qc3w5s9hfs8dm76wrqnk6fjmsez2t4kk6zyugmrlzgds8sqfesmlm/proposals) As this subDAO will be able to adjust the taker fee on any pairings at will, this interfaced deployment enables transparency of action so that all changes can be rationalized and the Osmosis DAO can make an informed decision to revoke access if required. The subDAO should need a majority vote to pass changes and require at least four independent members to approve of a vote at any time in the event of changes in membership. A voting period of three days with re-voting will be designated so that changing the taker fee for a pairing may be agile while still being able to be vetoed by the main Osmosis DAO in the event of excessive changes to the fees being set. Newly listed assets will incur the higher default taker fee as liquidity builds until this is overwritten. Founding members are: - Everstake (Validator) - Hathor Nodes (Validator) - Leonoor’s Cryptoman (Validator) - Orageux (Independent) - PRO Delegators (Validator) - Stakecito (Validator) - White Marlin (Validator) **Target On-Chain Date** : 19th September 2023 ---
**Author:** ![RoboMcGobo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/robomcgobo/32/633_2.png) [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/RoboMcGobo)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2023, 5:45pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323/2 "2023-09-11T17:45:01Z")
This is a great initial group of contributors and I particularly like how members were chosen that represent both viewpoints on how we should handle taker fees (both the aggressive side and the more conservative side). Looking forward to this getting started! ---
**Author:** ![Govmos](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/govmos/32/123_2.png) [@Govmos](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Govmos)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2023, 3:49pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323/3 "2023-09-12T15:49:15Z")
Glad to be part of the sub-DAO, Indeed this is a much needed initiative as there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to risk management. I’ll do my best to bring the experience I have in this domain. ---
**Author:** ![Orageux101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a9a28c/32.png) [@Orageux101](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Orageux101)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2023, 11:59am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323/4 "2023-09-13T11:59:02Z")
Hello all, thought I’d pop by to introduce myself! I’ve been in the space for a couple of years now and have had a specific interest in DeFi (and separately DAO governance). My twitter tends to show me talking about any DeFi ideas that come to mind, so may be useful if you want to check if I am of sound mind. I have spoken about Osmosis a bunch on it too, so hope that @RoboMcGobo and @JohnnyWyles can vouch for that if needed. Happy to answer any questions you may have! Just in case anyone is curious, I have been supportive of a taker fee for a while and do think Osmosis should be more aggressive with its taker fee to maximise the value gained by transitioning to concentrated liquidity. ---
**Author:** ![RoboMcGobo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/robomcgobo/32/633_2.png) [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/RoboMcGobo)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2023, 12:45pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323/5 "2023-09-15T12:45:56Z")
Super happy to see you taking on a more active role in Osmosis’s gov process and I’m excited to see what you’ll bring to the community in this role! ^.^ ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyWyles](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/johnnywyles/32/3114_2.png) [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 1:16pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323/6 "2023-09-18T13:16:30Z")
Noting that Stakecito are also joining as an additional member! Waiting on confirmation of addresses and final participation confirmation from the remaining members and then this will go to chain. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyWyles](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/johnnywyles/32/3114_2.png) [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2023, 2:42pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323/7 "2023-09-19T14:42:13Z")
Unfortunately, RedRabbit has had to drop out of this founding lineup. We still have a 4/7 arrangement and so the subDAO has been formed [here](https://osmosis.daodao.zone/dao/osmo162wk8qc3w5s9hfs8dm76wrqnk6fjmsez2t4kk6zyugmrlzgds8sqfesmlm/proposals) This will be going to chain later today. ---
**Author:** ![VK\_S16](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/vk_s16/32/1764_2.png) [@VK\_S16](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/VK_S16)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2023, 5:02am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/delegate-the-setting-of-non-default-taker-fees-to-a-protocol-fee-subdao/323/8 "2023-09-22T05:02:33Z")
Approve the members of the subDAO. I believe all individuals involved have Osmosis’s best interests at heart. Curious about the process of choosing the members, how do you guys do that?