Proposal: Disposition of ProtoRev Collected Revenues - Distribution

Original Thread: Commonwealth

Note: This proposal is posted concurrently with a proposal to Burn the collected OSMO. Whichever proposal passes and receives the highest share of Yes votes will be considered the choice of governance regardless of the order of passing.


This proposal seeks to determine the disposition of all past and future revenues collected by the ProtoRev module (apart from those already being allocated to the Skip Protocol developer wallet). The proposed distribution is as follows:

  • Non-OSMO revenues to be sent to the Osmosis Community Pool
  • OSMO revenues to be distributed directly to OSMO stakers (subject to validator commission)

Background

Developed by Skip Protocol, the Osmosis Protocol Revenue Module, or ProtoRev for short, collects revenue for Osmosis by backrunning trades that create cyclic arbitrage opportunities, thereby capturing value for the protocol rather than seeing it extracted by arbitrage bots. ProtoRev has been live since the Osmosis v15 upgrade, which occurred on March 16, 2023 (101 days ago).

In that time, ProtoRev has generated an all-time revenue of approximately $108,000 for the protocol (Source: https://pinewolytics.de/osmosis/protorev/). Pursuant to a previous proposal, the collected revenues were required to accrue in a module account until at least June 01 (with the exception of Skip’s 20% revenue share, which is removed from the module on a periodic basis).

At the time of writing, the module account contains approximately 124,000 OSMO, 2,075 ATOM, and 3,010 axlUSDC. This proposal seeks to distribute this revenue, and all subsequently collected revenues, according to the parameters set forth below.

Proposal

This proposal signals community consent for the following:

  • Distribute all past and future non-OSMO revenues collected by the ProtoRev module to the Osmosis Community Pool
  • Distribute all past and future OSMO revenues collected by the ProtoRev module to OSMO stakers (subject to validator commissions)
  • Make future changes to the distribution of these revenues governance adjustable parameters

Distributions of revenue to the Skip Protocol developer wallet are exempt from this proposal. The revenue share collected by Skip Protocol will continue to be distributed according to the fee structure outlined in Proposal 341.

Rationale

Non-OSMO revenues:

Allocating the non-OSMO revenues to the Community Pool will help the protocol begin to diversify its treasury. The benefits of treasury diversification have been well-documented and include:

  • Allowing for a source of funding for protocol-level investments in growth beyond the native token, the sale of which often results in downward price pressure on the native token’s value
  • The ability to execute buybacks of a protocol’s native token in periods of economic distress
  • Allowing a protocol to remain liquid and spend funds on development costs or strategic partnerships even in prolonged bear markets.

However, the main barrier to being unable to diversify a protocol’s treasury effectively is that, in most cases, doing so requires the sale of the protocol’s native token, which negatively impacts that token’s price. For example, if Osmosis were to sell just 10% of its community pool (9M OSMO), this would tank the price of OSMO by 25%. This could be mitigated by an OTC sale of OSMO, but this leads to concerns around the ability for the DAO to contract with an external market maker as well as potential liability for individual members of the DAO that choose to sign such contracts.

The most effective protocols are those that are capable of diversifying their treasury via organic revenue collection mechanisms. Key examples of this are Lido, Compound, Aave, and MakerDAO. Using the organic revenue collection mechanism offered by the ProtoRev module, Osmosis can join these protocols as the treasury becomes more and more diversified over time. Non-OSMO revenues are currently small, but these are expected to increase as more volume is routed through stablecoin pools when concentrated liquidity becomes more prevalent in Osmosis.

OSMO revenues:

The rationale for distributing OSMO revenues to stakers of OSMO is rather simple. Real yield mechanisms are becoming an increasingly important part of value capture for DeFi protocol tokens. As Osmosis’s inflationary emissions continue to drop, transitioning slowly into a sustainable fee model for stakers will help keep the chain secure and drive value to the OSMO token well into the future. Let’s break this down with some numbers:

In the past 101 days, the ProtoRev module has collected 124,000 OSMO (not counting Skip’s share), which is the equivalent of 1,227.72 OSMO per day. Annualizing this revenue gives us 448,118.81 OSMO per year.

When divided by the number of staked OSMO, this gives OSMO stakers an APR of 0.16%. While small now, it bears remembering that these numbers are expected to increase substantially in a bull market, which will drive additional yield to stakers of OSMO as more new users gain interest in the protocol. Additionally, when added to the expected yield to be generated by the Protocol taker fee (approximately 3.95% if the proposal to divert the OSMO portion of this fee to stakers passes), this will result in a total real yield of 4.11% to OSMO stakers, which would make it one of the highest-yielding real yield protocols in the Cosmos Ecosystem.

Implementation

Note, if passed, this proposal will need to be implemented in a subsequent software upgrade and will not be implemented immediately.

Transferred Comment
Playwo
osmo1gewl

•

6/26/2023

Is there any reason why a whole different distribution mechanism for protorev revenue is necessary?

I get that transferring Non-OSMO assets to the community pool will help with diversification and agree that this is a reasonable thing to do.

But for the OSMO part, why not treat it just like we treat newly minted OSMO?

If there is a reason why the existing distribution is bad then I think we should fix that, instead of coming up with a new distribution mechanism for this arguably quite small amount of OSMO.

Transferred Comment


Seppmos
osmo1zvd8

•

6/26/2023

Previously I was against a OSMO burn mechanism, since I think the real yield narrative is stronger and more compelling. However, as we’re about to implement the protocol taker fee which brings real yield (3.95%) to OSMO stakers, the additional 0.16% APR on top of it does not really grow the pie. Thus, I think burning OSMO obtained from the ProtoRev for the foreseeable future makes more sense and drives a nice narrative: ~4% real yield + token burn mechanism.

I guess it would be wise to implement the various modules like ProtoRev distribution, Protocol Taker Fee ect. first, so that they can be adjusted by governance at any time. Once these modules are live, a simple governance vote can adjust these parameters’ according to the underlying market conditions or the protocol’s need.

Right now we might be better off burning OSMO received from the ProtoRev, however we should always be able to flip the switch through governance and redirect ProtoRev “income” to other sources like the CP, POL or payout to stakers.

The same should be true for the Protocol Taker Fee. Where these fees flow to and how high they are (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.15%) should be adjustable with the flip of a switch.

Totally agree that the non-Osmo part should flow to the community pool for diversification purposes. I like the idea of swapping ATOM into stATOM, a yield bearing assets that grows the CP over time.

Transferred Comment


Johnny Wyles
osmo1

•

6/26/2023

After talking to several validators for feedback, I was on the verge of posting the version I had compiled post-516/519.

The main questions raised were that we needed:

  • More discussion on the potential options
  • More detail on what the impact would be
  • To see the effect of the recent changes to Osmosis tokenomics play out.

TLDR; This proposal is not urgent and more about the long-term sustainability of the protocol. Everything should be parameter adjustable by governance, and we should split this proposal into three portions,

  • One to confirm the non-OSMO community pool allocation (similar to how the taker fees prop did)
  • Two to decide if we should be burning vs. distributing.

Discussion

The non-OSMO portion seems evident in that it should go to the community pool. The only issue would be if some should go to stakers here - but the taker fee should be substantially larger than this, so we likely have that covered.

What to do with that non-OSMO should not be in the scope of this proposal. Protocol Liquidity in Supercharged pools, Protocol Lending, Liquid staking… all interesting ideas that should be explored, but not as part of this.

The OSMO part is the big question here. I prefer a burn mechanism. We now have a distribution mechanism from the Taker Fee proposal, and a burn mechanism could have a long-term impact, offsetting or eventually creating sustainable inflation allowance years in the future. This allows inflationary rewards to existing while offsetting inherent impermanent loss in un-incentivized OSMO locations.

This may also synchronize nicely with protocol-owned liquidity.

As Supercharged pools roll out, I strongly suspect we will see liquidity move from OSMO to USD pairs. OSMO pairs will likely still linger, primarily due to the broad liquidity provided by Superfluid Staking participants. However, as the community pool has many OSMO, POL would probably be in OSMO pairs.

Since ProtoRev would need to originate in an OSMO pool to generate the OSMO part, we could potentially adjust the burn rate by controlling the amount of OSMO paired liquidity the protocol held.

I think this is worth exploring, and having a variety of mechanisms with different levers is in line with the experimental spirit of Osmosis.

Impact

It will be almost impossible to model the impact of this until Supercharged pools are fully implemented.

Based on historical data, with a 10% year-on-year increase, we’re looking at deflationary from a burn in 17 years, or an OSMO APR of about 0.16%, as mentioned.

Neither are massive impacts, so I think this is more about the potential for a new mechanism and the long-term sustainability model. This should be implemented as parameters that can be adjusted, similarly to the Taker Fee proposal.

New Tokenomics

We have just had significant changes; I think we should only put this decision on a chain in around a month to allow these to settle in and break it down into more digestible portions.

Transferred Comment

RoboMcGobo
osmo1t8cd

•

6/26/2023

I can get behind breaking the proposal up into two parts, although it seems a little unnecessary given that the burn was rejected by governance twice already.

But why not implement smarter community pool strategies like rotating the ATOM into stATOM before sending it to the community pool in the initial proposal? Seems like a relatively popular choice, and the people who would be building that mechanism out seem to be on board with it already.

Transferred Comment

Johnny Wyles
osmo1

•

6/26/2023

This is the problem with bundle props. What was rejected was:

  • Burn OSMO & Buyback and Burn
  • Burn OSMO, Community pool transfer & Offset burn

These proposals would be

  • Community Pool transfer
  • Burn OSMO
  • Distribute OSMO

We can try, although there are many great ideas in the works and not enough development hours to implement them all, so I would take that comment with a pinch of salt.

When proposing any mechanism, it forms even more of a bundle if not separated out too.

Transferred Comment
RoboMcGobo
osmo1t8cd

•

6/26/2023

Well I don’t have enough liquid OSMO to post 4 proposals, let alone deposit on them, and Primetrust broke my onramp. :frowning:

This proposal seems extremely straightforward (holding the assets in stATOM notwithstanding).

I propose that we:

  • Post this proposal on-chain as written and let governance decide
  • Put up a second discussion about how we want to custody assets in the OCP if this passes.

There have been a lot of good discussions on twitter about how the OCP should hold collected non-OSMO assets (stAssets, POL, etc), and it occurs to me that we should probably extend this part of the discussion to encompass taker fee assets held in the OCP as well, so I do think it makes sense to break this out into a subsequent proposal.

Transferred Comment

Johnny Wyles
osmo1

•

6/26/2023

I assumed it would be everything else in the OCP, but we should be explicit. There are a bunch of Stars and Umee in there that should be converted too.

In that case, can we add a tag to this of Disposition of ProtoRev Collected Revenues - Distribution? I will put up a mirroring proposal with the tagline - Burn.

Along with a paragraph similar to the bridge off:

This proposal is posted concurrently with a proposal to Burn the collected OSMO. Whichever proposal passes and receives the highest share of Yes votes will be considered the choice of governance regardless of the order of passing.

Mars has helped me stay liquid to make proposals without suffering too much dilution, hence the sheer spam I do!

Transferred Comment

RedRabbit33
osmo1hxfd

•

6/29/2023

The value of a diversified treasury is that it allows for community to pay for things more efficiently.

Personally, I see more value and utility in staking the ATOM revenue up to a certain amount and supporting Hub validators that provide key services to Osmosis users as a more efficient and effective use of resources than converting the ATOM to stATOM.

While this would require more human effort, the benefits seem to easily outway the costs, particularly if Osmosis stakes its ATOM with validators with commission rates lower than 10%, which is what Stride charges on staking rewards. The greater flexibility this offers, particularly the ability to redelegate to validators and allocate the community’s ATOM resources to those validators based on the services they can provide to meet needs as they arise, where the commission they would receive from the delegation, and even the staking rewards that are earned, to cover costs more like a pay-as-you-go procurement contract versus the current practice of procuring services through vehicles that are akin to onetime upfront payment procurement contracts in and of itself would be a more efficient and effective use of resources, in my honest opinion.

The community also already has a vehicle where the human effort it would take to operate such a program already exists; the OSL. The OSL could easily be tasked with staking ATOM with validators that validate for the Hub and Osmosis, and run a large number of relayers, like Lavender Five, Cros Net, Polkachu, Crypto Crew, and Whisper Nodes, which operate the most relayers for Osmosis according to https://relayers.smartstake.io and work with them (and others) that meet or exceed their standards to expand support for community supported relaying services in a model akin to public private partnerships. The OSL could even rotate ATOM delegations to Hub validators such as Iliquison to develop a Osmosis LSM like they have for ATOM, Keplr developing wallet features that would benefit Osmosis users, among content creator validators like Cosmos Space, Interchain FM, Stakcito, etc to provide content for the Osmosis Community Updates blog, , or data dashboard providers like Smart Stake (https://osmosis.smartstake.io/stats) and Rockaway Labs (https://observatory.zone/osmosis) to work with Flipside to enhance the Community Enabled Analytics program (when it is renewed).

For industry that prides itself on innovation, there doesn’t seem to be much innovation going on in terms of resource management to effectively and efficiently procure needed goods and services.

Transferred Comment

Aaron Kong
cosmos1wq

•

6/25/2023

Distributing OSMO from protorev to stakers, as you mentioned an APR of 0.16%, is trivial.

  • This OSMO would be much better burned, imo

For non-OSMO revenues, I’d like to see that distributed to stakers, though I’m aware that diversifying the CP can also be valuable here.

Transferred Comment


RoboMcGobo
osmo1t8cd

•

6/25/2023

An interesting thought came up on twitter about this.

For the ATOM in particular, maybe we could convert this to stATOM (by swapping it on Osmosis) before depositing it into the Community Pool.

This way it enters the pool as a productive asset that generates yield for Osmosis while it sits in the pool. Would be interested in getting thoughts on this.

You can see the full discussion here: https://twitter.com/RoboMcGobo/status/1673063435007918086?s=20

Transferred Comment


Leonoor’s Cryptoman
osmo14amd

•

6/28/2023

That is an interesting thought, but I would propose to adopt a diversity of liquid staked assets from various providers.

Let’s not put our eggs in one basket again as we had with UST.


Leonoor’s Cryptoman
osmo14amd

•

6/25/2023

Thanks for opening this discussion @RoboMcGobo

I remember that earlier we also talked about converting the non-OSMO ProtoRev revenue into OSMO via some sort of OTC-swap with the community pool. The CP is already quite big and we need to question ourselves if it needs more growth at this point in time, or that diversification is our sole purpose atm. In the future when the height of the CP has decreased we can always change that setting if needed.


RoboMcGobo
osmo1t8cd

•

6/25/2023

Diversification is the key here. The amount of OSMO in the community pool paints a misleading picture of the actual value in the pool. As indicated by the math above, the effective utilization of the pool is between 9M and 18M OSMO ($4.5M and $9M, USD), but that would result in a dump in OSMO price of about 25%. If we tried to offload any more, the price of OSMO would rapidly trend toward 0 from there.

This is why diversifying the pool is so important. If the need arose for a big spend in a bear market like this, the OSMO in the pool likely would not be able to absorb the cost. We never want to find ourselves in this situation:

To read more about treasury diversification and the problems associated with maintaining a treasury that consists solely of your protocol’s native asset, I highly recommend this article: https://uncommoncore.co/a-new-mental-model-for-defi-treasuries/

Leonoor’s Cryptoman
osmo14amd

•

6/26/2023

I’m very much ok with the diversification, I think I didn’t express myself clearly on that in my previous post.

I am more wondering if we should fill the community pool with the non-OSMO ProtoRev and make the pool larger

OR

do what was mentioned earlier to perform some kind of swap where non-OSMO assets are added in the CP and OSMO assets are taken out in a 1:1 ratio.

Note: i am withdrawing this proposal in favor of @JohnnyWyles proposal to burn the OSMO collected.

That proposal can be found here: Disposition of ProtoRev Collected Revenues - Burn

1 Like

Can we add something like [ABANDONED] in the thread title?

3 Likes

Done and done! Thanks for the callout!

1 Like

Just discovered how tags work! You can edit the title and add any tags in that same area!
Going to try them out and see if that looks cleaner for the forum layout

1 Like