# IIP-86 MVI Fee Split Proposal **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal\ **Tags:** IIP\ **Created:** [13 September 2021 15:40 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/iip-86-mvi-fee-split-proposal/2645 "2021-09-13T15:40:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 13
**Author:** ![Thomas\_Hepner](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/gov.indexcoop.com/thomas_hepner/32/111_2.png) [@Thomas\_Hepner](https://gov.indexcoop.com/u/Thomas_Hepner)\ **Post date:** [16 September 2021 01:02 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/iip-86-mvi-fee-split-proposal/2645/13 "2021-09-16T01:02:42Z")
**I will be voting FOR this proposal** , assuming the specified revision below. > [@mel.eth](#): > > I would like to see the vesting arrangement and claw-back (keep 7/24, return rest) made explicit in the proposal We can quibble about whether the proposed fee split for MVI fair or not, but I don’t think this is productive. We should do the following: 1. Bring MVI in-line with the _current_ fee split for simple index products (DPI, DATA) 2. Eliminate the distinction between _community and external_ methodologists 3. Revise the [misaligned incentives](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/an-analysis-of-methodologist-incentive-dynamics/2675/3) for all existing and future Index Coop methodologists. We should _assume_ significant changes to methodologist incentives as they are being redesigned as part of the Index 2.0 efforts. That big, thorny problem will not be solved on this particular forum post discussion. > [@BigSky7](#): > > The fee split and methodologist bounty may be revised at some point, as part of the Index Cooperative’s larger effort to reconsider its relationships with methodologists. --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/iip-86-mvi-fee-split-proposal/2645)._