Make Proposal For Token Holders/Stakers To Receive a % of fees Generated from the platform

Whale, can you hear me?

Make a Proposal For Token Holders/Stakers (or staked voter tokens) To Receive a % of fees Generated from the platform.

Numba go up!

x

2 Likes

The platform doesn’t actually generate any fees. Only relayers earn fees

Can we make it so the platform can
generate fees then?

@graham_hancock

I don’t see why not, however there are first matters to discuss with the community e.g. around whether $TORN possibly becoming deemed as a security could represent an issue (I don’t personally find the security a problem as tornado.cash intends to stay outside of standard channels e.g. CEX), and other aspects around sustainability, functionality, technical obstacles and whatnot.
Nevertheless, price-trajectory wise $TORN seems already strong enough even without it becoming an asset straight away.
Even though additional layers of financial incentive could be met favorably, it is important to remember that first and foremost, the scope of $TORN is encouraging community participation in relation to governance in order to establish a more decentralized decision making process.

Generally speaking I kinda agree, but would like to hear what the others think.

Yes, I see. But I don’t see how torn could be shut down or affected badly.

Just following on from a telegram chat I was having (in regards to how it could work)…

Instead of staking in a traditional circumstance, we could use the tokens that are vote locked as the requirement to receive the nominated % of fees. which would promote governance too, and make the fees claimable via l2 or 0x relayer (or whatever works).

However I’m not sure how to make that happen or even if that’s possible, so just putting it out there for smarter people here to discuss.

1 Like

Yes, I see. But I don’t see how torn could be shut down or affected badly.

Just following on from a telegram chat I was having (in regards to how it could work)…

Instead of staking in a traditional circumstance, we could use the tokens that are vote locked as the requirement to receive the nominated % of fees. which would promote governance too, and make the fees claimable via l2 or 0x relayer (or whatever works).

However I’m not sure how to make that happen or even if that’s possible, so just putting it out there for smarter people here to discuss.

No, the core protocol cannot be changed in this way. It would threaten the integrity and security of Tornado. The pools have already been deployed and cannot be changed anymore. Not even by governance

The only way to add a fee now is by proxy enforcing relayers to pay a fee for being whitelisted, which I don’t think is a good idea. Or by adding fees to future pools before they are deployed, which I am also against

There are plenty of ways to make money without just blanketly extracting value from all users

For example: it has been discussed to create cDAI tornado pools. cDAI mixers would earn all the interest on their cDAI while also mixing their tokens. They’re already just holding their tokens and waiting. Why not mix it at the same time? Interestingly, cDAI holders are also able to generate COMP tokens in compound’s liquidity mining program. If cDAI is being mixed into tornado, it may not be possible for its owners to redeem COMP, themselves. But it may be possible for a pool admin to redeem the COMP on their behalf, in which case these tokens could be distributed to TORN holders. Or used to purchase more TORN to distribute or keep in the DAO treasury

4 Likes

@ethdev
I like the idea of using the cDai + Comp interests to market buy up more TORN which then stays in the treasury thus creating an ongoing deflationary force. Could even be burned to make things even spicier?
The other alternative you suggested i.e. distributing interests to TORN holders is also good.

2 Likes

Credit to @poma for the cDAI idea

Tho cDAI interest would always go to cDAI holders/mixer. So not TORN

But liquidity mined COMP rewards are negotiable

Buy & burn is definitely another great strategy to reward all TORN holders. I’d be in favor of that as much as buy & hodl in the treasury. Whatever the community preferred

2 Likes

There seems to be a project attempting something similar:
https://twitter.com/BlenderTheMixer

1 Like

I’m prefer to reward user by community account replace with core protocols fee. The later way is island with it.

This is awesome

It also looks like cDAI is actually available on tornado.cash. For some reason I don’t remember it being there (maybe it only recently got added? maybe I’ve got a failing memory)

Found this reddit post from August 2020 mentioning cDai https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/iabs3q/how_many_tornadocash_anonymity_sets_are_enough/

What needs to bear in mind is, the discussion is about incentivizing $torn holders. An outstanding governance participation will only be present if you reward voters. At the moment there is no use in holding $torn. Thus ppl are not willing to pay gas to vote and therefore the cycle is not yet closed.

IMO Gov voting > rewarding ppl using the protocol - otherwise the protocol does not need a token which seems to be the case atm. (orient on curve’s gov mechanism).

Major problems in no gov participation would be whale protocol manipulation towards personal interests. Just look how 0xb1 is gov-attacking comp. I see a major short term risk.

I think it’s not a discussion about how to profit from holding $torn rather how to complete the cycle. Simply because in a gov driven protocol, gov is paramount.

2 Likes

@LPL
I agree with you on gas being very expensive recently, however I think most of us wouldn’t mind paying around 100$ to participate in governance of important aspects of TC’s future.
Since I am already willing to spend my time and energy to contribute to a project, what difference would it make for me to also put a small bit of pocket money into it?

1 Like

Totally agree

We’ll certainly need to be mindful of the social pressure we will receive from passive TORN holders who don’t want to participate in governance, but still want the reward (like MKR holders)

We should definitely optimize to reward for governance participation (like YFI holders)

3 Likes

I think it’s technically feasible and it makes sense to add a protocol fee at the proxy level for withdrawals. However, I think this should be implemented in a far future. I would focus growing the user base and the anonymity set over seeking rent so early in the protocol’s life.

3 Likes

Technically, the easiest way to do it is by changing relayer’s software so that they send a small portion from their fee to some smart contract. That smart contract can have any logic on what to do with those assets. Anyone can come up with a proposal on how it should work. But I generally agree with @Rezan that it might be too early for this kind of work.

1 Like

I also agree with @Rezan; definitely other matters to prioritize as of now.

1 Like

https://app.tornado.cash/governance/3.

the proposal is there… just needs to be coded.