@unicorn re direct fiat on-ramp: as William said, there hasn’t been a high volume for fiat on-ramps. If we look at Ramp (the one with the most volume in Idle), we had ~ $50k volume since May 2020, and most of it was during the initial 0% fees promo we’ve done with Ramp. That said, it shows us that audience is not currently oriented to fiat onramps (and that’s why we included it as Low User Value).
However, I believe we can spin another test with fiat onramps with the direct deposit – I’m looking if we can partner up with a fiat-onramp to provide that without having a heavy burden on Idle’s development side (partners should directly interact with Idle contracts or have an idleTokens reserve for their customers).
@nrgskill great points!
Fully agree on (1), ETH would be one of the top priority considering all benefits that bring with it. For reference, there’s a discussion about that here.
On (2), automated harvesting would likely be for accrued gov tokens (excluding IDLE), but I see what you’re saying on the user profile for that specific automation – I think this possible downside can be dampened if our community agrees to give another usage to IDLE.
And this leads me to (3) and (4) topic, which has been discussed here and partly here (as a component of tranches strategy). I believe the trajectory that the governance is pushing for is clear, but there are some flaws we need to address before proceeding with that (eg, it’s a bit early to start fee sharing with stakers, as the treasury is still growing and part of it will be routed to the Smart Treasury, and fees shared would have a low impact on stakers’ return).
The reason why staking is High Effort, it’s because the CRV model (which has been discussed as a possible implementation) would require us to change the entire governance module for Idle, and it’d be a quite high effort task. Other staking models might fall into a different effort classification.