Proposal: Create an AADA Circular Economy

Introduction

  • Approve
  • Disapprove

0 voters

This proposal aims to attract lenders and borrowers as well as retain AADA holders of the AADA ecosystem. This aim is achieved by incentivizing all three participants (lenders, borrowers, and holders) within the framework of a circular economy. This framework will build upon the two proposals recently approved by the DAO. Namely:

1. The treasury proposal:
(Proposal: Create a treasury and fund it using Service Fees on the AADA protocol)

2. The buyback proposal:
(Buyback Proposal #3: Implementing $AADA buyback mechanics)

Motivation

The current motivation among the DAO participants is to incentivize AADA holders ONLY to ensure their retention in the ecosystem, and this motivation is enacted through the two approved proposals mentioned above. These proposals are, indeed, steps in the right the direction, and the current proposal builds upon them. The current proposal will tackle an incentive mechanism for the lenders and borrowers in such a manner that creates a circular economy that benefits the AADA holders, lenders, borrowers, and the protocol.

Because all participants are incentivized under the circular economy, increase in lender and borrower participation is expected which will lead to increase in collected fees, increase TVL, increase reward for AADA holders, increase fund for governance, and increase value of the AADA token.

Rationale:
Comparison between staking (or safety module) vs circular economy:

Staking / Safety module:
-incentivizes AADA holders ONLY
-reward emission is pretty fast and leads to sell pressure
-does not generate fees for the protocol
-risk is assumed by AADA holders

Circular Economy:
-incentivizes AADA holders, borrowers, and lenders
-reward emission rate is very slow so it does not lead to selling pressure (allocated tokens will not be consumed even after 20 years.)
-risk is assumed by borrowers and lenders since they are now incentivized.
-lead to an increase in lending/borrowing activity, therefore an increase in TVL, increase in airdrop for AADA holders, and an increase in AADA value.
-not done anywhere else (something new for AADA if it gets implemented).

The Circular Economy

1. Problem statement:

Currently, the AADA tokenomics allocates 34.75% AADA for staking and governance. However, the staking mechanism is unproductive and only devalue the AADA token because staking reward increases the circulating supply, and AADA holders monetize their reward by selling the received tokens. The staking mechanism just emits AADA from the reserve without generating fees. We should use the reserve to increase lender/borrower activities via an incentive program.

Think about credit cards. They have the miles program all year round. You use the card for your needs and, in return, you get miles as reward.

The circular economy shares the same principle.

2. Solution

This proposal adopts the mechanisms outlined in the two previously approved proposals. Namely: the collection of a network fee plus other fees, the incentivization of AADA holders using the 50% of the collected network fees, and the creation of a treasury from the other 50% of the collected network fees (which will be used for the buyback mechanism).

The current proposal recommends that the AADA staking mechanism is discontinued. Instead, the current proposal recommends that all the 34.75% AADA allocation (or whatever is left) is diverted to the proposed treasury (see the treasury proposal above) and divided into two allocations: one allocation is for governance (50%) and another for the lender and borrower incentive program (50%).

“Incentive for lenders and borrowers?”, you asked. Yes, because these participants are also important for the organic growth of the ecosystem. The lender/borrower fund is a small price to pay to increase the protocol metrics. As mentioned, these metrics are increase in collected fees, increase TVL, increase reward for AADA holders, increase fund for governance, and increase value of the AADA token.

The proposed lender and borrower incentive program is reasonable because lenders and borrowers lock funds in the protocol and contribute to the total value locked (TVL). This is the more meaningful TVL than the TVL derived from staking AADA. The lender and borrower incentive program should have about 5.04 M AADA allocation as calculated below:

29 M total AADA * 34.75% AADA allocated for staking and governance * 50% AADA allocated for the lender and borrower incentive program = 5.04 M AADA

The current proposal recommends 10% annual emission rate from this fund. The decline of the fund at 10% emission rate is given in the figure below. However, this decline will be replenished by 50% of the buyback program (the other 50% of the buyback goes to governance). In addition, the increase in TVL also increases the value of AADA which should compensate for the decline of the amount of the fund. Because of the buyback program, the fund is unlikely to go to zero.

3. Mechanics

Lenders and borrowers are only incentivized if they have an active lending and borrowing, respectively, i.e., liquidity deposits and requests are not incentivized. The duration of the lending/borrowing should never be less than 6 months in order for any participant to benefit from the program incentive. Incentives are accumulated per epoch but are paid only after liquidation or repayment.

Sample calculation:

  • Program fund: 5,040,000 AADA
  • Fund allocation for year 2023: 5,040,000 * 0.1 = 504,000 AADA
  • Number of epochs = 73
  • Rewards per epoch = 504,000 / 73 = 6904 AADA
  • Total ADA lent + total ADA borrowed for epoch 1 = 1,000,000 ADA (Just for example. Also, tokens are calculated in ADA value at epoch snapshot).
  • Reward per ADA for epoch 1 = 6904 / 1,000,000 = 0.006904 AADA per ADA lent or borrowed.

For the borrower:

  • A borrower who borrowed 1000 ADA worth of tokens will receive 6.904 AADA as his reward in epoch 1, but he must kept that borrowing position for at least 6 months. Otherwise, his reward is forfeited.

For the lender:

  • A lender lending 5000 ADA worth of tokens will receive 34.52 AADA as his reward in epoch 1. When he is repaid by the borrower before the 6-month maturity, he earns his rewards for the epochs his liquidity was borrowed. However, he must hold his liquidity deposit locked in the protocol for at least six months. Otherwise, his reward is forfeited.

Potential weakness of the proposal:

The proposal can be exploited via fake lending and borrowing. For example, wallets owned by the same entity might initiate lending and borrowing to arbitrage on the reward. This will create fake TVL which is not healthy for the protocol. However, making the lenders and borrowers commit to a 6-month locking of funds might be enough as a deterrence.

Also, the amount of lending and borrowing that can benefit from the program is limited to 20k ADA (or whatever is agreed by the DAO). For example, if there is a lending/borrowing that amounts to 1M ADA, only 20k of that will benefit from the incentive program. Why? No middle-income people can afford to lend/borrow 1M ADA.

3 Likes

I am not in favor of this and think you should have researched the safety module staking as it is NOT about inflating supply needlessly, its about renumerating those who take risk to secure the protocol.

There had never been a mention of lenders and borrowers getting tokens and stuggle to see how you feel staking needlessly inflates supply but needlessly giving lenders and borrowers aada ontop of their loan or interest isnt.

1 Like

I am interested in the safety module. Where can I read about it? I’ve come across about it but I haven’t found the link. I am interested to know how the AADA protocol is secured by staking your AADA. Just really curious because AADA is not a blockchain.

Yes, the circular economy is first in AADA as far as lending and borrowing is concerned. It is to bootstrap the struggling participation in the protocol by incentivizing all participants: AADA holders, lenders, borrowers, and even the protocol.

Also, the 5.4 M AADA is not going to get consumed even after 20 years as you can see from the provided graph. The emission rate is very slow. This is in contrast to staking AADA to get more AADA - that mechanism is going to consume the 5.4M in a very short span of time, devaluing your AADA. Case in point here is INDY, because of the INDY staking reward, the INDY price tanked.

Finally, most lenders are paid in ADA. So giving AADA incentive on top of ADA to lenders and borrowers is not going to devaluate your AADA holding. It will, in fact, encourage participation, increase TVL, and therefore increases the value of AADA.

I hope I explained it well.

2 Likes

Have you staked aada?

Im sorry to sound quite harsh but your proposal has some quite radical chnages to the products and tokenomics of the project and it doesnt feel like you have researched what aada staking will look like…

From my perspective peer to peer is a stepping stone to pooled lending… we shouldnt be incentivising liquidity on it at the cost of the stability and safety of pooled lending in the summer.

1 Like

Radical change. Sometimes we need that. Explore things that had never been done before. Go to the moon, aim for Mars. These are all risky, but we do them anyway.

Again, I still have to read about the safety module as well as the AADA peer2pool lending. Believe me, I’ve been looking for docs about them for a while now. The link you gave did not have the information. How does staking AADA secure the stability of a pool? Say a pool for ADA/iUSD?

The same way as AAVE’s Safety Module. Safety Module - Aavenomics

2 Likes

Sometimes, as token holders, all we think about is pump our bags directly. There are a number of ways to pump our bags that will also benefit the whole ecosystem. That is what I was trying to propose here - the circular economy.

Why did you guys take the stability pool section out the gitbook dude -.-

Weak move. We need it back asap so people can actually DYOR :man_facepalming:

I mean, I’ll give you your credit if youre admitting the purpose of the proposal is to pump your own bags :joy::joy:

No, I was referring to the mechanism that benefits the holders only. My proposal benefits everyone.

It doesnt benefit anyone in 6 months who wants to do pooled lending…

Only benefits stagnant peer2peer requests or bolsters yield for transacted lend/borrow requests.

I see what youre trying get at, but, nah.

If you read the proposal correctly, stagnant requests or deposits do not earn from the circular economy. Only active borrow and lend because these are the only ones that generate fees. The fees that will benefit the whole ecosystem.

Please read the proposal again and let me know if I proposed that stagnant requests/deposits are incentivized.

My mistake about the stagnant requests.

However my point still remains that people are already getting a yield from their trade prosition (lender/borrower) should not needlessly be getting any additional aada…

Taking a fee and essentially giving back the same value in aada is pointless. If the value of the fee is lower than the proposed aada rewards then thats what will needlessly inflate supply…

Fedback to the team about the gitbook as the stability pool staking should never have been taken out of there :man_facepalming:

1 Like

However my point still remains that people are already getting a yield from their trade prosition (lender/borrower) should not needlessly be getting any additional aada…

As you can see, there is very little participation among lenders and borrowers. How does staking AADA to get more AADA solves that problem? I will get back to you once I am done reading the safety module.

Taking a fee and essentially giving back the same value in aada is pointless. If the value of the fee is lower than the proposed aada rewards then thats what will needlessly inflate supply…

There is a point you are missing here. The generated fees are split among AADA holders, governance fund, lender/borrower fund. The lender/borrower fund is essentially a mechanism to entice more lenders and borrowers so the protocol can get more fees. The more fees, the more incentive for the holders and the more money for the goverance fund.

This is how government works. A powerful government gives aid to less powerful ones in return for a political favor that they can use in the geopolitical arena. When they have a secured control of geopolitics, that is going to translate to better return in, mainly, trades. That’s why I would like to invite you to expand your horizon.

1 Like

Sorry mate, feel youre going off on one here lol.

If the reward is less than the fee then your arguement makes sense, we havent agreed or voted on fees, so we dont know how much or little those fees will be.

Participation is what it is, we need (again) to keep in mind Peer2Peer was never our corebproduct, it was never intended to be the flagship product. It was a nice to have while they build the actual product we invested in (pooled lending using NFT bonds) so is there an issue the product no one asked the team to build isnt being used as much as it could have?

Also found some data from the whitepaper on the stability pool, dissppinting how the team have moved this information to a obscure part of their github only :sleepy:

But I cant add it to this comment either :face_exhaling: @neophyte should send you this.

Sorry mate, feel youre going off on one here lol.

Sometimes, it’s necessary to go off-tangent to prove a point as things can be understood using different lenses.

If the reward is less than the fee then your arguement makes sense, we havent agreed or voted on fees, so we dont know how much or little those fees will be.

The reward will be less than the fee when more people participates. Meanwhile, the less participation, the better should be the rewards to entice more people to participate. Even with 2.5 M reward allocation, the lender/borrower fund will never go to zero. Please have a look at the graph again.

Participation is what it is, we need (again) to keep in mind Peer2Peer was never our corebproduct, it was never intended to be the flagship product. It was a nice to have while they build the actual product we invested in (pooled lending using NFT bonds) so is there an issue the product no one asked the team to build isnt being used as much as it could have?

I’ve been following AADA. In my recollection, it was always a peer2peer if I remember it correctly. However, it is transitioning to peer2pool and its best to keep both, peer2peer and peer2pool. In peer2peer, lender gets better reward but poor liquidity. In peer2pool, there is better liquidity but poor rewards.

So, incentives for lenders in peer2pool is even more important.

Your recollection is wrong im afraid.

Maybe, but that statement will not stand in court.

Well considering the long term plan is (or at least should be) well known it makes it easy to disprove the statement. If you want i can show you exactly when mantas said they were building peer2peer as a inbetween thing while theyre building the pooled systems.