IIP-86 MVI Fee Split Proposal

@sixtykeys @Pepperoni_Joe @mel.eth formally requesting an iip number and a snapshot vote Wednesday.

5 Likes

Can I please get clarity on the proposal. Am
I voting for something that has @Thomas_Hepner comments included or something that does not?

I just want to be sure I know what I’m voting for here.

1 Like

Yes - the comments from @mel.eth @Thomas_Hepner have been included in the proposal.

DFC and Verto will forfeit the remainder of their unvested tokens on the date of the switch, the tokens will be returned to the Coop treasury.

6 Likes

Hey @BigSky7, IIP-86 assigned. Given that the proposed IIP is just finalized now, the 48-hour waiting period would put us at snapshot on Sep 23 at the soonest. Please let me know if you would like this queued for Thursday Sep 23 and and have it run into the weekend or queued for Monday Sep 27 and have it run during the week. Otherwise good to go.

3 Likes

Thanks @mel.eth - can we please send it to snapshot on Monday Sep 27

4 Likes

IIP-86 is set to go live on snapshot today at 1800 UTC and ends on September 30, 2021 at 1800 UTC. Please vote here.

cc: @sixtykeys, @BigSky7, @Mringz

4 Likes

Noting that this IIP has PASSED with 342.54k INDEX (98.2%) voting FOR and 6.29k (1.8%) voting AGAINST. :white_check_mark:
snapshot here

4 Likes

Great work everyone :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket:

4 Likes

@dylan – Does @BigSky7 or @Mringz need to submit this to Coop Engineering Resource Request in order for this IIP to be effectuated?

Trying to get this moving/executed upon.

1 Like

Yes @BigSky7 @Mringz Please submit a EWG work request via the form above. EWG can’t keep track of all requests on the forum/discord etc… so if something needs to be done you guys need to bring it to us (via the form above)

2 Likes

We’ve raised a request through Cavalier and @ncitron is working on it I believe.

2 Likes

Just making a note here that as part of the switch over, I’ve asked that the Coop claims all tokens from my vesting contract (both vested and unvested), making a note of how many vested tokens were outstanding to be paid back at a later date. This helps me to avoid a large tax liability and further price risk due to no current process for the treasury to buy back tokens as set out in IIP-36 (tax in UK is due at price of claim). The contracts are not built to enable clawback without outstanding tokens being claimed, so this is a simple solution to avoid a forced claim.

The treasury have been notified and will pick it up as part of normal reporting. The responsibility for requesting the transfer at a future date falls to me and this note will act as record that this was agreed with the Funding Council (Dylan, Joe and Greg). This only applies to my contract.

10 Likes

hmm… this could be changed for the future. Thanks for that

1 Like

Hi @DarkForestCapital @BigSky7 @dylan

With regards to the fee split: Can we confirm if 70/30 is before or after on-chain costs ?

It would be great to know what was discussed with regard to on-chain costs. I believe it is a significant cost relative to the AUM and thus is significant in terms of the product’s profitability.

Perhaps there is a commitment somewhere to socialise these costs into the product and this is a mute point?

3 Likes

As laid out in the above proposal - this agreement was reached based on the precedent set by DPI, and DATA. These indexes use a pre-gas fee split. Which is what was agreed upon with the methodologist for MVI.

Your question leads to a much bigger question - how do we effectively socialize gas costs between Index Coop <> Set Labs <> Methodologists?

In our current system, each separate organization is incentivized to pass on gas costs to the others. It seems clear that gas costs should be born equally across all parties that are launching an index. With that said we need to take steps to ensure that launching indexes is not prohibitively expensive for our partners (especially smaller teams).

We should strive to make Index Coop as methodologist friendly as possible while still ensuring that everyone is bearing a fair share of the costs. Super open to any ideas on how best to do this.

7 Likes

Still think @Matthew_Graham has had the best suggestion - gas costs for rebalances should be borne by index holders once a given TVL threshold has been reached.

My understanding was this was in the EWG backlog. @Cavalier_Eth @dylan

2 Likes

Index product holders or $Index token holders? And TVL for the Coop or that specific product?

If there is a convo somewhere in the Coop Discord let me know and I’ll take a look!

3 Likes

Index product holders (DPI, DATA, MVI, etc).

The idea of an index is that transaction costs are spread across holders of that product, not entirely paid for by a separate entity.

I remember @Matthew_Graham describing on a call and with me in a Discord group, but don’t think it’s anywhere on forum.

2 Likes

I don’t want to side-track this post, but flagging that gas costs will be a factor in the future fee split conversations, as well as the profitability calculations of our products. We want to enable products to launch and grow into their markets, while making gas costs transparent and part of the ongoing decision-making by IC and methodologists.

Tactically, PWG is currently contributing to the fee split framework development, and EWG is building a rebalance cost estimator.

5 Likes

This IIP has been executed. Execution doc with related transactions can be found here:

7 Likes