gm,
I would think both projects need to share revenue obtained when interacting one another, not just one side… yes Abra is getting more rev + tvl from popsicle hosting frontend but this also allows popsicle to leverage the power of Abra and gain more rev + tvl… If it is just one side earning fees, there should be more tests ran to see if 50/50 is really the number to be at in the beginning.
regards,
wagmi
to your point where 50/50 would be an understatement for abra token holders SPELL…its not…by joining both protocols will also brings unique advantage and probably more liquidity into protocol that will anyhow increase rewards amount compared to reward it generates without integration…50/50 though it may sound but to overall ecosystem its a win-win due to increased rewards and benefits…you need to consider both sides for your evaluation !!
I would like to understand how much the MIM leverage integration will increase Popsicle’s native revenue from trading fees. I think it makes sense for the overall profit from both Abra + popsicle be split approx 50/50, but based on this proposal the revenue would be weighted more heavily on Popsicle’s side (given that native popsicle revenue is not shared). In other words, the revenue split should go both ways (or even be weighted more towards abracadabra to cover for the inflation necessary to keep mim liquid).
Tldr: I think a fee share is a no brainer, but I think we need to think more about the appropriate split.
I agree with @0x7d54 this sounds like it will have a negative effect on the sSPELL hdlers while only rewarding the nICE hodlers, I do not see this as a must or a need I rather not take that 50% cut from my rewards, sorry but this is a no go for me.
Perfectly fits what I been waiting for. Acutally I leverage my LP thru Abra. Tomorrow I wanna do in in Popsicle. Much easier usage…
I agree with this, everything lp within the eco is synonymous with popsicle finance. I believe we would receive more volume if the UI was through popsicle. 50/50 also seems fair if popsicle is managing the liquidity anyway. Rekam approves.
In general I do like the idea but 50/50 split does seem to be a little bit too generous. Especially considering current adoption and limits of Popsicle.
Might be that I don’t fully understand the benefits and how much of an impact that might be.
To provide a bit more context to my previous post:
Calling this a 50/50 split is a bit misleading.
Really it’s a 50/50 split of abracadabra’s revenue and a 0/100 split of popsicle’s revenue. This is made even worse for spell holders when you include the inflation necessary to keep mim liquid.
I would like to see an analysis that includes: fees generated from abracadabra due to leveraged farming, fees generated from popsicle due to leveraged farming, and a pro rata proportion of the spell inflation necessary. I think a 50/50 split that is inclusive of all of these factors is fair, but to just use the first one is unfair to spell holders.
(Coming from someone who holds both spell and ice).
Yes – thank you for spelling that out so explicitly, here.
Hello all,
I appreciate this proposal, and I can appreciate the synergies between Popsicle and Abracadabra, however I believe a 50/50 revenue split is asking too much of sSpell holders. In my opinion, the main product of abracadabra is leveraged IB and LP farming, and I don’t think it is fair or necessary to share the revenue that this product generates. This is especially true if Popsicle will not be sharing revenue generated with Abracadabra, and when you consider that Abra will be subsidizing the MIM peg to sustain the Increased TVL.
That being said, I like the idea of native LP leverage within the Popsicle application, but I see this as a separate issue from the revenue share.
Thanks
This may or may not be a good idea, but isn’t there much lower hanging fruit that doesn’t require fee splits?
For instance, on Abracadabra.com if I connect my wallet, it would make sense that the dapp instantly shows me what positions I have in my wallet right now that I can borrow against; this seems like such a useful feature that would definitely help drive more borrowing. Even better if we just offer zaps on abra, and it doesn’t seem worthwhile that we’d need Popsicle to help this.
Just my $.02
Why don’t we start with 80/20 profit share with earn-outs such that after X amount of fees it transitions to 70/30, then 60/40, then 50/50. This could be a good compromise and work to the same ultimate solution if it is successful.
This is great, keen to learn so much more about this.
Seems like everyone is applauded the proposal however seem a bit hesitant about the fees, specially since popsicle shares NONE of its revenue with Abra but Abra shares 50% of its fees with popsicle.
Leveraging LP’s will increase TVL drastically specially in pairs where the allocations are vast like ETH/WBTC.
I am sure the team has already run a test environment for this. What do the numbers look like?
Disclaimer:
I hold positions in both projects and I also farm both tokens.
I love the idea and the partnership will increase profits for both platforms. As a holder of both governance tokens, I only stand to gain.
I really don’t understand why there has to be a revenue share. Providing this functionality will increase volume for both Abra and Popsicle and there are already mechanisms in place for both sites to profit from that volume.
From what I understood these fees would be the only one charged to the user by both protocol, popsicle wouldn’t make any more money than the one shared by abracadabra, that’s why it’s more of a Abracadabra x Popsicle fee than a Abracadabra fee shared with popsicle.
Of course if popsicle charged a fee to its users it’d need to be shared with abracadabra to balance that partnership.
i agree. Actually, abracadabra is yet to make true profit with the weekly emissions outpacing buybacks but we know its totally deflationary and that’s a start. Messing up with the system now to drive the value for Popicle is too short term an outlook imho yet the potential damage it could cause the MIM ecosystem is too much to risk. Besides, it’s better both ecosystems work and seperately since they already compliment one another. I’d certainly vote no. This is too much guess work and hypothesizing and could throw a spanner in the cog of MIM’s rapid growth & takeover of the stablecoin landscape and crosschain DeFi activity. NOT WORTH THE RISK!
Too much guess work, hypothezing and hopium here. You’ll be throwing alot of variables and hopium into our stablecoin crossdefi takeover just to boost your ice bags. A definite nope for me. It also keeps the regulatory wolves from taking down Abra by going after Popsicle. Keep the lines clear.
I strongly feel that this proposal to provide a 50/50 revenue share between Abracadabra and Popsicle Finance is a bad idea. One protocol should not be used to bootstrap or subsidize another.
To wit, Abracadabra has had steady, consistent revenue growth since its inception. The current analytics dashboard indicates that the protocol has made $4.9m in its current epoch.
Abracadabra has a large community of wizards and frogs who have supported the protocol since launch. The product itself is unique and showing growing adoption.
At only 6months since launch, to steal revenue from the Abracadabra protocol is to stymie potential growth in this current nascent phase. At present, Popsicle is 2 weeks old since relaunch. NO sustainable revenue or growth has been demonstrated to support a revenue sharing agreement.
At this time, the proposal to share 50/50 revenue is vampiric to Abracadabra as it:
As such, I would strongly urge the community to vote NO on this proposal.
Only the Leverage LP from popsicle would benefit from that fee sharing, not the. whole protocol, popsicle supplies Abracadabra with new TVL and abracadabra shares the revenue generated thanks to that new TVL.
Nothing changes for the other cauldrons, 100% of their fee still belong to abracadabra.
This is just for the Popsicle LP positions