Simplify protocol revenue sharing and tokenomics, Aligning on KPIs for growth stage

Proposal
1

Background:

Creating this post to start community discussion.

Mux is super impressive product and team has great track record. The opportunity to unify x-chain liquidity and aggregate across markets and products is exciting - still very open :slight_smile:

So far, the project has been making quick and significant progress - volumes, users, liquidity have all been growing fast. New chain deployments have been happening quickly. And project revenue is punching way above its weight - already doing more monthly revenue than most projects many many times larger by mcap and tvl.

Complication:

Current ve tokenomics are quite complex. There are more optimal mechanism designs that reward long term-term holders but don’t require locking to participate in voting. Requiring locking to participate in governance can prevent smaller users / community members and even large funds with a ‘liquid’ mandate from participating.

Also, there’s been a few different posts outlining complex ideas recently around POL and other things, potentially not-aligned “north stars” / end goals. It’s important for community to align on key KPIs moving fwd so that growth stage can be executed smoothly and at scale / size.

Solutions to discuss -

  1. Tokenomics - It might make more sense to switch to GMX’s ‘multiplier point’ based governance system. This system incentives long term holders the exact same as ve model but doesn’t force holders to lock their tokens.

GMX system would also mean more users are more able to collect their share of revenues - again without requiring lock up. This may lead to MCB mcap repricing back towards other protocols with similar revenue profiles

Is there another benefit that ve model has that GMX model doesn’t? If not, moving to GMX model seems best.

  1. fees - unclear right now what exactly the revenue split is. But simple 70/30 split between LP and MCB / MUX holders makes sense. Treating POL differently then rest of LP base would not be in protocol’s best interest - not sure if this is the current model?

Making more aggresive split for LPs like 80/20 could help grow LP base as well if that’s priority…

  1. on aligning on KPIs / priorities. Here’s what seems like absolute most important KPIs, aligning on these means they can help drive priorities and governance votes moving fwd

  2. Daily active users

>>this grows by chains, mkting, more protocol and wallet integrations, overall product UX and quality

  1. Total Protocol revenue

*>> this grows by increasing demand for MUX trading.

Growing LP base a part of this higher goal - which is needed to support higher volumes natively. Native liquidity is higher margin than aggregated and is longer term better for MUX. Marketing efforts, 3p protocol integrations, wallet integrations, building UX features that traders want also big part of this.*

Conclude

Hopefully this framing of key topics and posing of new ideas is helpful, especially towards aligning everyone on higher goals so that roadmap, governance, forum posts etc all tie back to core goals and principles.

Very keen to hear feedback from team and community on this -

3 Likes