[OGP-12] OATH Tokenomics Upgrade

I would definitely support the proposal going ahead with just oOATH options 1 and 2 for now and holding off on the 3rd option to think it over more and come up with something that has more of a consensus among everyone. I do strongly feel that we should include some kind of an option that requires zero up front capital even if it is the transmute-like solution as Teenus mentioned, it doesn’t necessarily need to be a streaming option. I agree that not having an option like this could be a deal breaker for a lot of people.

As for the reaper fees being included in bOATH revenue, I think everyone in here commenting on that is aligned with balancing growing the treasury and the ecosystem along with bOATH yield. I think the general consensus is that some part of it should be included in bOATH yield, whatever that percentage may be. And I think that we’re all pretty flexible on discussing that number. Leaving that discussion for another proposal is quite acceptable in my opinion.

But personally I’d like to still see it mentioned as part of this new tokenomics proposal that bOATH will indeed get some part of reaper fees. Same with digit if that brings in any revenue idk? I think it has a lot of relevance in the marketing and buy-in of bOATH, being able to say that it gets a bit of everything the oath foundation does. Rather than just picking and choosing which things go to the treasury and which things go to bOATH, I think it should become a general rule that everything the oath foundation does, bOATH gets a piece directly in some way. While I completely understand and agree with the whole…what’s good for the ecosystem is good for bOATH, I don’t think that translates to the average person bonding their oath tokens into a bOATH LP near as well as…the oath foundation shares a piece of every pie we make with you. And as I mentioned before it doesn’t have to necessarily be most of the pie, maybe just a sliver, but I think there should alway be a piece in there if we want to make “the perfect staking token”.

The other thing I’d mention is that we can always adjust these percentages through a governance proposal even after they’re set could we not? So if things become unbalanced and bOATHERS are killing it and the treasury is hurting, we could always adjust percentages to the circumstances with a vote? I think the more important thing is having a hard and fast rule that bOATH gets a piece of all pies, the question just being the size of the piece…instead of should this or should this not be included.


how about:

-rewards in oOath have anormal stream period of 3-6 months.
-oOath bough of the market gets a stream period of 2-3 years?

Long time listener, first time caller.

Generally I think this proposal is great!

Lots of questions, and not sure if this is the place for all of them…

In the $bOATH twitter thread (https://x.com/OATHFoundation/status/1714354441061859345 6, it says

Stakers will receive fees earned by http://reaper.farm, yield generated by http://ethos.finance, or yield accrued through OATH swapping.

and I agree that bOATH stakers should get a part of fees from Reaper, however small in the beginning.

My other question is about the yield generated by Ethos, my understanding is that this yield from the vaults is used to buy back OATH for distribution to the stability pool, but maybe I’m behind on that and the stability pool would be using oOATH as well for rewards with the yield from Vaults then going to bOATH holders?

Could you define Ethos platform fees? Is that the fee taken (0.5%) for borrowing ERN? and instead of being paid out to bOATH in ERN it will now be paid out in the native collateral asset? Would this be true for additional LSTs as well when they are on board? Do platform fees also include redemptions?

With bOATH staking moving to digit, will all fees / revenue be compounded back into more bOATH or will there be an option to recieve it without compounding? Since digit will be the only place to stake bOATH I think this is an important part of the discussion, but could be for another separate vote.

I agree with the two oOATH distribution methods (Redeem & bond) and agree that the last option (stream) could be finalized in a separate vote once those details are sorted. For the bonding option, would the bOATH that’s vesting accrue some of the fees of regular bOATH or still TBD?

Will oOATH only exist on OP or will it be multichain? I guess most of the LPs on other chains are funded with recycled OATH for bribes and veNFTs?

Lastly @Sober what do you use to make your diagrams - really appreciate the clarity of them and will help users navigate these changes once they are finalized.

I’m confused about the Bond section. Once the conversion is done from oOATH to bOATH, it then talks about a 3-6 months vesting process. Does that mean that the conversion process from oOATH to bOATH is to be vested for 3-6 months befroe it is complete?

The ideal version of this would create a position with a base value of 2x your premium (Put in $25 of ETH and $50 of oOATH, receive bOATH valued at $50). Over time (undecided at the moment), your value would appreciate until a max maturity value ($100).

I believe the current smart contract design is a bit different. If I’m not mistaken, there is a fee upon exercising this “vested liquidity position”, which would achieve something similar to maturity.

I read Sober’s message and concern above and due to that concern, I am not in favour in the Stream section where users would get OATH at full market price if they wait 6-9 months. There should not be any options or opportunities to allow users to get OATH at full market price as that would defeat the purpose of otoken mechanics, as Sober stated.

As for the Bond section, if that 3-6 months vesting schedule is to claim one’s bOATH into OATH and ETH, then no, i am not in favour of creating any kind of vesting schedule that would cause users to lock their tokens. That has never worked and goes against Oath’s original position when marketing Digit. Plus, it will not incentivize anyone to lock up their bOATH. Instead, ppl will just wait 6-9 months to convert their oOATH for OATH at full price.

If the Stream section were to be taken out, then there would be no need to have a vesting schedule to claim bOATH. The two compliment each other, but the proposal is creating a negative loop around OATH. It’s better to not have the option for oOATH to ever be converted for OATH at full market price, but allow users to bond their OATH into bOATH. this creates a positive loop as it is incentivizing ppl to bond their oath since that is the only avenue for them to earn good yield since they will be earning fees and other perks under this proposal instead of selling their oOATH at 50% lower price

I would advocate for the opposite; let users lock their OATH and ETH for bOATH at e.g. $100 value, and with time maturity, the fees they are earning increase over time, up to 2x premium. This will further incentivize users to lock up their tokens and keep it there for longer

The system is designed to incentivize achieving max maturity while keeping the user liquid. The net return is 4x of their premium + rewards (if feasible). Redeeming is a net of 2x

1 Like

Consensus as I have seen in the comments so far:

Move forward with option 1 and 2 in this proposal.

Separate out Reaper Fees for their own proposal.

I mark this proposal as ready for GPRC review using the above requirements.


Hey Idler!

It seems the Reaper fees are a popular subject, I believe we are going to do a follow-up proposal regarding Reaper fees so we can get this one pushed to a vote sooner rather than later. I’ll be posting a comment here soon on all the points raised and addressed.

Ethos platform fees are the minting and redemption fees. The distribution of these fees are going to remain the same. My proposal needs a correction there to include ERN as a revenue token.

Yield on the underlying collateral are not considered “fees” and will always (barring some massive change) be streamed to ERN stakers.

bOATH on Digit will be compounded. There is an ongoing internal discussion on whether to leave the non-compounding option on Ethos, I believe we’ve veered towards leaving it to give people the choice. The argument for moving everything to digit was to reduce confusion but I think that’s easily solved.

This is related to the previous question. bOATH compounding + digit position requires a bOATH vault on Reaper. Once that is set up we can reward oOATH bonders with vested vault tokens (rather than vested LP tokens) that will accrue them revenue while they wait. In short, yes we will have the option of sharing revenue with bonders while they wait for their vested tokens to unlock.

oOATH will replace all current OATH emissions. Wherever we emit, there will be a redemption contract on that chain for people to be able to redeem.

Hope this answers all your questions!

Ready for review on my end given the above requirements.

Will adjust the proposal on snapshot to include the adjustments

1 Like

Ready for GPRC Review.

1 Like

Ready for GPRC review


I think this is ready for GPRC Review

1 Like