Proposal - Breakdown the fees earned into two segments

I think the best course of action is to utilized the HOPR DAO liquidity fees in a manner that is advantageous for both the HOPR project and the community. Therefore, I would recommend that the acquired fees to be utilized in the following approach.

Break own the total amount of fees into two segments. This task should be done annually.

• Redistribute the portion of the fees (60%) to the HOPR holders as an incentive/dividend for holding HOPR. The dividend can be distributed based on each person’s total tokens against the total HOPR circulating supply. However, when distributing, care should be taken to remove HOPR DAO tokens so that the total fees would be distributed to individual holders/investors.

• The rest of the 40% of the fees should be re-invested to increase HOPR DAO’s current liquidity pools, so that as time passes, the HOPR DAO liquidity increases along with the revenue from fees.

1 Like

A really cool idea and that should be done sometime so. But I think since HOPR is still a very young project we should also try as a community to make HOPR better known and also support the further development of HOPR.

My opinion to the proposal: I think it is great, but please only in a later stage of the project. Now we should spend the DAI for marketing and / or development.

1 Like

I did think about marketing, however, since I Joined this project from late Feb, what I noticed is that this project is not too keen on aggressive marketing but are more focussed on the underlying product. If I’m not mistaken the spirit of the HOPR team is to make a good product and the marketing will come naturally which is more stronger than a temporary hype.

Anyway appreciate your feedback :)

Thanks for this proposal @MeowMeow23 ! Just to be clear - this is the DAI proposal category. So you’re suggesting to distribute 60% of the DAI liquidity to HOPR holders?

I have also been in Tezo’s since relatively early when it was added to the exchanges. There was no real marketing back then but the chain had a lot of interest and lots of developers driving innovation and programme being built on the chain. Recently they have employed a marketing team and now there on F1 cars advertising to millions and millions of people worldwide. The token has grown in value and is accelerating (although in a very choppy way) as part of this strategy, so marketing is key to grow the community with a good level of rewards to entice new participants.

1 Like

your assumption is accurate

Good idea. It will increase interest to long HOPR and stake also increase value of HOPR NFT

Thanks for the proposal @MeowMeow23. I’ve marked this as invalid because I don’t feel it address the criteria laid out here: UPDATED: PROPOSALS: Making proposals, validity rules and template

Feel free to use the template there if you think it would help.

Specifically, I’d need to see more information on the benefits to HOPR for this approach (you say “I think the best course of action is to utilized the HOPR DAO liquidity fees in a manner that is advantageous for both the HOPR project and the community”, but that doesn’t explain HOW this is advantageous).

I’d also need more explanation on what it means to “remove HOPR DAO tokens” and more detail on what form the reinvestment in the second part would take.

@cryptoartist and I are around if you need assistance

What - Breakdown the fees into 2 segments where 60% of the DAI fees will distribute to the token holders as incentive for holding HOPR. Rest of the 40% should be reinvested to increase the current DAI/HOPR liquidity pools (Add more liquidity) . I would have proposed to include a certain percentage for additional HOPR initiatives such as adding new chains/dexs, however it seems the other topic might cover this component.

  • Why? This approach will advocate hodl behaviour as token holders know holding tokens means receiving dividends as time passes. For the HOPR project, this means increasing liquidity as time passes which is very important specially when large token holders decide to cash out after a period of time will not cause a liquidity issue. This also means, 20% of the total DAI will become HOPR tokens when adding liquidity. This mirror a certain buyback of HOPR tokens which will be healthy for the project on the long run.

  • How? identify tokens holders who have held their tokens (Including liquidity providers , stakers etc) for at least 4-5 months and distribute 60% of the fees to them. when identifying eligible token holders exclude the HOPR dao Liquidity pool when distributing the tokens. I do not see any point in providing incentive to the HOPR DAO liquidity pool, as we are using this pools earned fees to distribute it to other holders. Furthermore 40% of fees will anyway be added to the DAOs existing liquidity pool. I hope this makes sense

  • **How much?**I would recommend to use 100% of the dai for this proposal, however if there is any other suitable idea/concept, we could reduce the allocation for this proposal and this can be included in the next round of the DAO proposal based on the other suggestions that adds value for both HOPR and the community.

Thanks for this update. Now that you’ve expanded this, I think it’s still invalid, but for a different reason: you seem to be proposing this as an ongoing program that would continue indefinitely? (The “How?” section begins “Every year…”)

The governance topic this time is a one-off question about spending a specific amount of money, not a general question about how to handle earned fees. So proposals can’t also lay claim to future fees the DAO may earn.

I think it’s possible to fix this by removing this ongoing component and just focusing on the funds available right now. But I can also see that without the repeated yearly allocation, you might feel the proposal would be changed too much from your original intent.

Thanks for the feedback and have removed “every year” so that this can be considered as a one off situation. Have changed “6 months” to 4-5 months as this would make more sense if this is one off occurrence. I do agree my intent was for every year but that doesn’t mean this approach can be used as a one time occurrence and I’m more than happy to be flexible.

Thanks @MeowMeow23. I think this is now a valid proposal and have tagged it as such. You can see it in the official list here:

Anyone who supports this proposal, please visit the link above and sign the proposal by clicking the heart (like) button.

While I do think this is a valid proposal, as a team member I’m not sure I can support it. The liquidity part seems particularly ineffective. The DAO currently controls over $15m in liquidity. Adding 40% of 150k to that is a less than 1% increase.

1 Like