Fee sharing distribution and Performance fee update

Ask @Davide @Teo then.

I did not mention that anyone should work for free, but that it helps to have skin in the game! Currently, it’s up to the contributor to choose to get paid in Idle tokens or USDC there is no official rule some choose 100% USDC some 50/50 others IDLE only.

My concern is mainly that the proposed solution will help short term but does not fix the current issues long term. We need to explore additional opportunities to remain sustainable.


I’m disappointed about how this thread is revolving around deconstructive comments and attacks on Leagues members, rather than proposing alternative ideas. Honestly, if this keeps up, we won’t see people trying to innovate in this DAO; all we will see are community members constantly trying to attack each other and break each other down. If you want to let this become the status quo, why would anyone try to build something here?

Considerate and constructive engagement is incredibly important. Just because we are in a decentralized, online environment does not mean social engagement rules are no longer observed. It is paramount to be mindful and always remember to never dehumanise DAOs or the people within. It’s the humans that make this space, it’s the humans that maintain it and will evolve it.

The human component is exactly the reason for this proposal, as we all want to keep maintaining and evolving the protocol and DAO. Are we going to do that by cutting the only arms of the DAO working every day to create value for tokenholders?

As a staker, I partly understand the reaction, but we need, as a DAO, to go over the concept of “gimme my rewards”. What are these rewards for stakers creating? If we’re all frustrated about a depressed market condition, we should also come to realize that staking rewards aren’t creating the expected outcome. And if stakers want to keep receiving and growing their rewards, they should be more thoughtful about the way how protocol revenues are directed to the humans that are in the trenches helping the DAO, every day.

If you read this proposal again, you will also understand that a 15% performance fee FOR NEW PYTs (not current Best Yield, as it’d be unethical to change the fees for all the current LPs) will be added to the revenue stream for stakers/rebalancer/treasury. And the reason for having a 15% fee instead of 10% is because with PYTs we are able to offer higher yields, hence the overall user return of the strategies would still be higher than Best Yield. Again, this 15% performance fee for PYTs will be ADDED to the distribution for stakers/rebalancer/treasury, increasing the cash flow there even with different weights.

Regarding Leagues compensation, @Salome, as William pointed out, ALL Leagues contributors are effectively getting 50% in $IDLE, so their skin is already in the game since the beginning. There’s the option to choose, but if you look just at the last 6 months, 50/50 is always been applied. Either way, consider that governance tokens held in DAO treasuries should not be considered liquid capital, and the actual cost of spending them is not immediately known, which is detrimental to treasury management.

Idle DAO created its token to decentralize the ownership and development of a suite of DeFi products that allow users to optimize their earnings and minimize risk exposure on crypto assets. Over time we worked with different type of users, and we understood that the product suite is more suitable for integrators and institutional investors (which, since data don’t lie, make up 95% of the current TVL). So our community should optimize for that. Shillers, traders, or communications that are only oriented to “buy the token it will pump” won’t create a community of actual users of the product suite. These are bad lessons that bull markets teach, growth schemes that are not creating more actual users for the products but rather aliment a “to the moon” audience. We need to grow the number of users of the products, which will help improve products and services over time, improve customer experience and retention.

I hope you can abstract from all the drama here and propose alternative models/numbers that can be voted by token holders. The only proposal I currently see with numbers that can go into a Snapshot is the one from @Biaf, as of now.

Lol vitalik knew the importance of community and marketing.
And when it comes to developing communities and awerness then yes i have bloody good insights as do many others yet they are historically ignored by this team for some reason.
So instead of getting your back up
Take the feedback from the few largest bag holders you have and make some changes.
Effective leadership is not about stubbornly sticking to a failing system but adapting.
Generating money by taking from those locked is prolonging the flaws
I doubt this proposal will pass so an alternative is needed.
I would suggest going back over calls with the whales who gave the team effective plans months ago


Lets get something corrected
Criticism is not attacking
It is vital for growth and development

The proposal is there to be scrutinised and that is exactly what is happening
You may not like it but that is the human element.

Even in a DAO system leadership needs to take ownership and critique

Alternatives were given multiple times

Something is lacking as there have been months and months of constant decreasing value

I can only encourage you to at least try listen to someone else for a while and at least try something different to your previous train of thought

Now from experience i know conversations like this are futile as leaders seldom adapt
Prove me wrong before we go to zero


The fact that the team choose to disengage / dismiss the so called “moonboi / shiller” community is part of the issue.

A healthy ecosystem will encourage plenty of new community onboard, and in crypto the reality these guys are essential to attract new users; bring liquidity, expand token holders and encourage trading and market making.

Lets not pretend this is due to current market conditions; as we’ve been in terminal decline for 12 months (both token price and TVL)

The primary issue here is that the token value has been in terminal decline the whole way through the bull market and as such there is inadequate treasury funds to provide a runway during the bear.

Instead of engaging to build the community the team hide on Discord, dismissing a large proportion of the audience that could create healthy price action, bring liquidity and stimulate demand for Idle.

This is the primary reason for the lack of community, lack of engagement and lack of treasury funds and the net result is that token holders who have held the token to 20 cents now also get slashed by 50% on staking rewards.

Somethings broke, right?



I’m disappointed about how this thread is revolving around deconstructive comments and attacks on Leagues members, rather than proposing alternative ideas.

This is a lie. Ambassadors have been vocal and actively proposing solutions for more than 1 year now.
It has been a long time that the biggest hands and the most active DAO members have been united in the criticism of BS pilling up in management decisions and structure.
Stop lying. It is not going to fly on my watch.

Are we going to do that by cutting the only arms of the DAO working every day to create value for tokenholders?

Yes, because it is not working, it is not able to create value. Leagues are an autistic echo chamber for their members.
If there was any decency left all League members should resign so that new tokenomics and governance can be put on the table for the DAO.

I hope you can abstract from all the drama here and propose alternative models/numbers that can be voted by token holders. The only proposal I currently see with numbers that can go into a Snapshot is the one from @Biaf, as of now.

@Teo You are held accountable as a coordinator for allowing @Biaf to publish text that is based on research from 2018 and 2020 and a lot of it is questionable/wrong.

Ambassadors tried for months to build better governance and tokenomics.

As today, back then you all kept ignoring reality , doubling down on your own BS and collecting checks, and because of that until all League put their seat up for resignation and Core team steps up to listen and rebuild the DAO, I for the 1st time since December 2019 :zipper_mouth_face:


To offer some of my thoughts here.


  1. The community is agitated by this proposal because we’ve gone through a 99% dump… (29 USD was ATH). Many of these community members staked their entire position in $IDLE for 4 years. This is commitment, actioned on, at cost to those who put their faith in you.

  2. This proposal attempts to prey upon those who have put their faith in you. Those who have locked and are unable to move their funds… It attempts to take 50% (from 50% fees to 25%) of the fees promised to these stakers, and give them to the “DAO”.

  3. The community has no confidence in the “DAO”. As you can see from the above-mentioned comments… Moreover, the community seems to believe that the DAO’s efforts lack transparency, and therefore lack accountability for its results. I certainly believe this.

Possible way to move forward:

  1. Please do not touch existing staker-rewards… This is very poor form in the least… and sets the precedence that the team cannot be trusted. Any future promise… commitment… will lack credibility.

  2. Show the existing supporters that you are not here to prey on them… You can consider increasing fees for any “new capital” which enters the IDLE Protocol… Hell announce that after a certain date “any rewards gained from the capital after XX date will be charged an increased fee”. OR Fuck it, give out NFTs to People who have had IDLE staked before XX date, this NFT will result in it’s holder always being able to get the low initial fees from IDLE protocol… This way you get fomo, hype, etc… Of course, these are just thoughts, I’m sure there are other optimizations…

  3. The fact that people who collectively control probably more than 800K $IDLE are saying that they will vote NO, means that they would rather see the DAO starve than keep supporting it in its current form… I believe I speak on behalf of everyone voting no that we’d like to see:

  • 6.1 More transparency regarding the various Business Development Initiatives… Are there bizdev trackers that you can make public? Do you guys document your meetings? Are you guys using any B2B CRM? These are things that any tech company uses to track and document their bizdev initiatives… not because it’s fun to document things… but because it builds accountability, and makes business continuity easy.

  • 6.2 More transparency regarding the Development/product work… Are there product roadmaps trackers? Perhaps a Jira/Notion??? Anything that tracks the individual stories/components that are being worked on that day?

  • 6.3. Since we are focusing on D2D onboarding. Youguys are not doing any marketing, fine… Thus, there is only Bizdev and Product/Engineering that needs to happen. There seem to be quite a lot of roles that should not be needing full-time engagement… Get lean, get focused, or this is ngmi. There is no reason for there to be more than two 'Business" guys on the payroll… and focus the rest on engineering/product.

  • 6.4. You claim that this is a DAO, but it lacks the transparency that other DAOs have. Sushi/Curve/Yearn… all have very publicly available trackers/documentation of what all their members are doing on what day…

  1. This brings me to my last point… Most of us believe the DAO/Leagues blurs responsibility and accountability. Fuck the dao/leages… $IDLE is too small and has too little engagement to have an autonomous organization… When people invest in IDLE, nobody invests in some DAO… we looking at Matt, Will, Davide… and the developer team… Take centralized ownership, and run this like a proper company. Instead of “Coordinators”… have proper full-time or contract people who you track against their KPIs and fire when they underperform.

  2. I know you guys have been trying to raise money since early 2021 to no avail… investors in APAC have shared with me your deck… and you know what? I cannot in good conscious recommend them to invest right now… You need to fix your organization first. Please please please begin heeding the advice of the last few members of your community… please heed our feedback… We are staked and locked up… our financial paths are aligned… Work with us… get rid of the dead weight… implement transparent workstreams, goal setting, and proper work documentation…be accountable…


Very well articulated :point_up::point_up:


Man knows how to explain and word what we are all feeling.


Bang on. Well put together


Same page.
Priority list:
1.Unplug Leagues
2.Fix Legal structure
3.Fix Business dev
4.Fix Marketing
5.Raise Funds
6.Rebuild DAO: new tokenomics and new Governance models.


@Coinballers I don’t agree with this and what you describe is not a shiller anyway

Trying is different than delivering, I didn’t saw proposals posted/voted

@idlehusbandry thanks for your post, this is a well structured answer. In general the ‘DAO’ should not trust ‘the team’ and in fact everything as been voted so far and is still being discussed / voted, you can propose to even raise the fee share if you want. There are also whales that may not be willing to partecipate in this, not-so-civil discussion, but still have different opinions.

That’s what was proposed initially, to increase fees of PYTs and share those with the DAO too, but apparently PYTs fees are not interesting. Ok.

I acknowledge that, but you should acknowledge that people, with probably some more IDLE, and probably some more skin in the game, are telling that what is proposed here is actually a good solution for not see the DAO starve in the coming months

I’m not sure how many people you think are working in the Leagues but currently there are 4 people full time and 1 part time. 2 biz, 1 designer, 1 comm/marketing, 1 dev

Regarding ‘transparency’ I’m not sure what do you think the leagues are hiding but there is no conspirancy actually all initiatives are published either in the forum or on twitter. What instead I saw is actually 0 proposal taken from 0 to 1 from anyone outside of the Leagues since Leagues have been established

(btw, side note, if you know what the yearn guys are doing please let me know when they will do the review for our last strategy, as we are waiting :slight_smile: )

so it would be more…transparent…? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

And yet here we are with a depleted treasury, no community, 500k MC, Idle Tokens worth nothing, zero buy pressure at 20c, harvest still dumping, defensive team and proposed drastic reduction on the main incentive to buy.

Sounds brilliant, no problem whatsoever :wink:


Well, as most of you know… i am not a staker especially not for long period. I literally have multiple reasons for that, not worth to mention :sweat_smile:

I do agree with multiple mentioned reasons from both parties.

Most important one, something NEEDS TO CHANGE in this dao. We can’t continue like this.

I don’t care if the rewards going down by 50%, but only if the token price goes up by, let’s say… at least 200x .
The TVL goes literally to a few billions instead of millions.
Everyone would be happy…
But how to get there?

Yes, the core team needs to listen more to the community.
But the community itself should also come with proposals who we can actually vote on and work with.

My biggest concern still, the core team has the biggest bag of tokens, so a leading vote in every proposal.
How is this a DAO ?
This structure should be different in my eyes.
Yes, the core team should still be able to vote, but not have total control on votes cos having the biggest bag.
Otherwise there is no point for the community to vote.

It’s simple in my eyes, a core team of every coin has one purpose… making money.
But i still feel, this isn’t the only reason for the core team of IDLE. I still believe they want to make IDLE very big.
It’s just hard with so many competitors.

And therefore the team should definitely listen more to the community, especially if it’s about making the community wayyyy much bigger.
Eventually that’s where we would all be benefit from.

Who Everyone would be happy with.

We need to start clearing out the difference between genuine and constructive critiques and shitposting.

Calling a proposal bullshit and Leagues members lazy or assessing that everything we say is a lie is not attacking? Saying “devs now run all decisions” (like, dev are just there for shipping and answering to “when is the next upgrade?”, “what is being built next?”, “give us an update!” no?), is not an attack/disrespect?

We have three options available, the three C’s: you can collaborate, you can compete, or you can complain. Only the first two of those options are meaningful in any way.

Less insults, and more concrete alternative proposals or specific input please. Toxicity isn’t going to get you the results you want.

Regarding the points that have been raised:

The governance forum has been open to anyone since the beginning of the DAO, although I haven’t seen a single proposal coming out regarding the “different things” that you mentioned. If you have other references, please share them, but I don’t see any post in this forum linking to these “effective plans”. Happy to be proved wrong.

Have you thought that giving out 50% of DAO revenues to stakers at a very early stage of the DAO instead of investing in growing the Leagues (which is in part going to marketing budget) could be the issue? Probably the best way to build runway during bull market was to retain all the performance fees in the DAO treasury.

Discord is open, and everybody can join; I don’t see anyone hiding. And the last sentence is peculiar, “stimulate demand for Idle” – that’s the only thing that matters for you? more people buying, that’s it.

We are building structured DeFi products, and we want to create and stimulate demand for our products. The token has been launched for governance purposes, and whatever is and will be its trajectory, it will always have this feature. The active community should be who actually want to use our products, not those who only want to use the “narrative” of our products to make money.

Can you point me to a proposal in this gov forum from Ambassadors that lays out these solutions? Calling out what you think is bullshit during community calls and checking on what every Leagues member is doing is different from actively proposing solutions.

Again, appreciate for the structured comment with assumptions+next steps @idlehusbandry; thanks!

Like any tech company, Leagues have a B2B CRM; but like any tech company, the CRM is always changing depending on conversations with partners, changes in priorities or release schedules. It would be misleading if public. If you need to have accountability for biz dev, why not looking at the actual partnerships that come out from Idle DAO like Lido, Olympus, pNetwork, APWine, Alchemix, VeToken, GnosisDAO to mention a few (just looking at our recent Twitter feed)?

We do have a public roadmap that is available to anyone and can be discussed with the community; however, I don’t think other DAOs share granular trackers for day-to-day tasks (since, again, priorities can quickly change in growing organizations). If you look at Yearn as example, only Doers/Trusted Contributors (same as Leagues members). can access the private contributors’ task board

Either way, our Github repos are public and auditable, you can see what the Dev League is doing by just looking at the latest commits.

There’s no need to take centralized ownership; that’s what Coordinators will already do for Leagues members while allowing decentralized governance of the structure: setting KPIs and tracking them against the Leagues to ensure accountability without giving this burden to all the DAO. The current mandate (M2) is not finished yet, and the next report will lay out what will change for M3 in regards to the achievements.

Thanks for this feedback. Although everything about Leagues is already documented in this forum, I always strive to improve this aspect. Creating clear and connected containers for the information circulating across and around the DAO/Leagues is vital when working with decentralised decision making. Leagues are designed to evolve, upgrade and update as we continue to discover more complexities and new behaviours. Standards and procedures aren’t static.

I disagree with this as it’s been established a policy for the core team at the beginning of the DAO to avoid this situation. Please check it out before getting to wrong conclusions.

Further than all of these considerations, this thread is clearly going outside its initial scope (“fee sharing distribution and performance fee update”).

The team has not been defensive in any way, as we have always been here (like today) to discuss the proposals and bring our thoughts to the plate. It’s an open discussion, but if Leagues members don’t share some points brought here, it doesn’t mean it’s “defensive” but rather open to talking and exposing with the tokenholders.

The only way I see this conversation moving from an endless passive-aggressive back-and-forth to an actionable state is:

  1. Get this proposal to Snapshot and vote. That’s the only way for the DAO to really express, and not only rely on a demagogic attitude of “the loudest is right”. So if anybody here has other concrete options/numbers for the “fee distribution policy” (aka weights for stakers/rebalancer/treasury), feel free to share it; otherwise, we will spin off a Snapshot poll with “new weights” or “leave it as is” options.

  2. Bring the Leagues feedback (accountability & others) to the “Leagues M3 post”. We always discuss achievements, priorities, goal setting, and new structures in this post every mandate, and we will be doing that for this mandate as well.


It’s directly linked to the issue. The root cause of the treasury having inadequate funding and therefore proposing to slash stakers is;

  1. failure to grow TVL which would deliver real revenue that could support the growth of the protocol

  2. failure to build an engaged community which would support token price, with token price being a key driver of treasury sustainability

  3. Let’s add; tokenomics that only benefit Harvest

Your comments imply we just want to “pump our bags” where my comments reflect the fact that the treasury is not sustainable due to these failures.

Do you not expect token holders to hold the team accountable for driving TVL / Protocol Revenues?

Net result is stakers being slashed because TVL / Idle token price make the treasury unsustainable and you don’t have funds to grow.

Most of us are locked for 3-4 years, & couldn’t give a shit about “mah short term pump” like you imply.

Anyway, these are the same concerns that are glossed over as “moonboi” talk.

So put it to a vote as you suggest. Based on voting history the only ones voting on the DAO consistently are the ones voicing their concerns here.

1 Like

Let’s Vote eventually that’s where voting rounds are for.
Why should we otherwise bring it up to vote if it where only proposals who passed anyway.

I don’t think this discussion is wrong, but just a good wakeup call, hopefully both parties understands and keep up the discussion alive… with respect.


As a smaller community member all i see from the team is complete denial.
An inability to acknowledge a flawed narrative and a doubling down of a failed approach and outdated mindset.
The communities only hope lies with stronger individuals like yourself and the other three whales that have been trying above.
Please group together and come up with a plan to save our asses as we have so much on the line and its being destroyed.


Good morning guys!

The discussion has heated up pretty fast. Let’s try to find a common and shared view about the two topics discussed here before voting:

  1. Increase the current performance fee on PYTs (from 10% to 15%)
  2. Update the fees distribution policy

Increase the current performance fee on PYTs

For point 1, the main concern raised was

As mentioned by @William the average APY for PYTs is way higher than the one for Best yield, hence we could expect that the change does not influence too much the yields generated. In addition, as it results from my summary analysis of fees charged by competitors, this change would only align us more to the market standard. We are not proposing anything extreme in the DeFi space.

The fee update on PYTs moves along with other changes affecting this strategy. @Davide, for example, here is proposing an update of the APY split mechanism to all existing PYTs. The new AYS method should allow an easier onboarding of new capital.

Given, the original analysis and the additional comments, I am personally 100% in favour of this change. I think is a strategic move to let DAO’s treasury be healthier. It’s important to remember that fees on the BY strategy are captured only when capitals are redeemed, while on the PYTs side we could count on fees collected at every harvest creating a more stable flow of revenues.

Update the fees distribution policy

The majority of the discussion relied on point 2, i.e. the update of the fees distribution policy.

Being an Idle DAO member and staker, I share part of the concerns here.
I do understand the point that changing the conditions when a lock is in place is not ideal.

Nonetheless, I do think we should definitely rethink the fee distribution rates. Sooner or later, the locking periods in place will end and it’s smart to start now a change. In the current state, the policy is basically crippling the possibility to create a sustainable treasury in the long run. I’m not speaking for a personal return as a League contributor, but instead with a strategic view as a DAO member.

As some DAO members pointed out, the League’s framework has some frictions that should be addressed.

@Teo is drafting the new M3 proposal that will be the best place to discuss the accountability issues raised.

This proposal instead was intended to try to give some oxygen to the Leagues’ funds in the short run. For this reason, I see the fee distribution change as a temporary measure (1 or 2 mandates) to address partially the issues arisen during this bear market. This change hence can be subject in the future to a new vote to modify again the weights.

I think we can all agree on decreasing the amount of fees routed to the Rebalancer

The number of fees budgeted to sustain the Rebalancer was set up too high. A cut on its share shouldn’t affect negatively the capability of the Idle protocol to sustain the maintenance costs of its strategies. This change alone would move the current Treasury share from 20% to 35%.

I would instead leave to a vote a possible reduction of the fees routed to stakers to be shared instead with the Treasury. Treasury that for the time being has been mainly used to fund Leagues, but that is at the disposal of every DAO member.

As a closing remark and for a matter of transparency, I would like to point out that starting from 2021, Idle stakers received roughly ~$225k worth of rewards (considering the $ value at emission), equal to ~123k $IDLE tokens. In the same period, Leagues were funded with around $150k in stablecoins.

Next steps

I’m keen to hear your feedback on these three points:

  1. Opinion on the performance fee increase for PYTs (10% → 15%)
  2. Opinion on the change of the share of fees distributed to the Rebalancer (30% → 15%)
  3. Additional ideas on how you would change the current distribution policy if you have any. If not, we will just vote on it.

Please let’s add comments only revolving around these three points. Your inputs will help in setting up a snapshot that can effectively measure and showcase the DAO sentiment on these updates. You can find a draft below.


Question: Do you agree to update the current fees distribution policy?


  • Agree with the change in the Rebalancer distribution (30% → 15%) and Stakers distribution (50% → 35%)
  • Agree with the change in the Rebalancer distribution (30% → 15%) and Stakers distribution (50% → 25%)
  • Disagree with every change and keep the distribution policy as it is