Suggested Changes to Rewards Payout Percentages - For Discussion

1

I think we are all excited for the new mechanisms coming online for BSL and increase in rewards. The year is surely looking good.

Thinking long term - I believe we will get to where we have a large enough market cap that daily volume could be in millions - greatly increasing SLP funds and with new mechanisms and more uses cases ability to use it and make good returns. Currently I believe the reward payouts are 90% rUSD, 5% BSL and 5% back to SLP. I would like to suggest one change to this that I feel would help.

85% to rUSD = to be used once Carbon Card is active and people can spend and earn more rewards in BSL. Continually passive income, using and recycling into ecosystem to live life.
5% to BSL = to reinvest or sell or whatever you want to do with. This continues to put upward buy pressure on the token, which is good.
5% to SLP = continue to help increase SLP funding, possible even lower fee slightly in future when generating enough.
New 2% = for DAO marketing, grassroot onboarding rewards, admistrative costs, possible future exchange listing fees, DAO driven initatives, etc… Cover operating costs and increase ability to market and grow DAO outside of Banksocial
New 3% = burn forever. This creates a deflationary mechanism for burning supply and keeps price upward trending and helps during down periods.

Let me know your thoughts?

2

Appreciate you putting this together and thinking long-term about sustainability and rewards — totally agree it’s exciting to see new mechanisms coming online and to start thinking ahead.

One thought from my side is around timing and sequencing. Right now a lot of the rewards flow is still supported/guaranteed while volume and enforcement mechanisms are maturing. Personally, I’d love to see us first get clarity on where BSL becomes required (access, staking, operator bonding, usage gates, etc.), and let organic fee generation take shape before locking in burns or more complex payout splits.

I do like the idea of explicitly funding DAO ops/marketing in a transparent way — that feels practical and honest. I’m just cautious about adding burns or price-focused mechanics before demand is structurally unavoidable.

Curious to hear how others are thinking about sequencing this — definitely appreciate you starting the discussion :+1:

1 Like
3

I would support adding a percentage for DAO loan marketing but we do not need a burn mechanism. We are not inflationary so there is nothing to balance.