SUMR TR-WG Checklist

[chrisb]

Thanks all for the comments, will try and address some of them, and some rationale for reasons why, and some changes as put forward by @halaprix while building out the contracts etc too…

@JavierD

I feel like the current lockup + penalty design is defensive. It doesn’t create demand; it just tries to stop people from selling.

I disagree that it’s defensive. I think adding the real yield component in USD is what creates the demand here, it will be one of few tokens that you can actually earn from, that doesn’t just involve the same token that your locking. If it was just additional SUMR rewards, I agree that this would be fairly defensive.

@JavierD

and no one will lock tokens for 36 months knowing they can be slashed, IMO.

I disagree with this. I think one of the closest examples potentially to this is Aerodrome, which as shown here (https://dune.com/0xkhmer/aerodrome) has an average lock period of 3.77 years. I actually believe that the penalty, although harsh, serves as more of a reason to lock, instead of it being a fixed lock without any option for getting any back.

@JavierD

And when you look at the projected revenue ($600k for 2025) with only 10% going to stakers, that’s $60k total.

This is definitely correct at the moment, and we do need the protocol to grow for more revenue to be able to attract a larger amount of Stakers - but I think it’s also important that we need to start somewhere, and there are a number initatives ongoing that will hopefully have a big impact on this in Q4.

@JavierD

I believe the focus should be on liquidity, the tech, making sure both tokens can co-exist, etc, and continuing to improve the protocol itself. At the end of the day, the price of $SUMR will be driven by how strong the product is, not by how much we lock people in.

100% agree with this - and this is why this is a little late in the development, as the focus has all been on the protocol, finding product market fit, and focusing on what is needed from a feature point of view. The product is getting stronger every week IMO, in particular with the official launch recently of our institutional product (Introducing Summer.fi Institutional: Crypto-native yield, purpose-built for professional allocators and asset managers) that is already starting to show some strong demand.

@Raphael_Anode

Aragon approaches ve/gauges with a kind of inverted curve from Curve (pun intended).
You get basic/low VP or yield at first, minimal lockup (two weeks) and the yield or VP grows over until it approaches an upper limit.

This is actually exactly how it has initially been implemented by @halaprix so far too (except for change in voting power) - but you start off with very low lockups with very little reward, and then longer you lock on the curve, the more rewards you get (in both SUMR and USD revenue share). Likewise, the penalty decreases the closer to your unlock date too - so if you lock for 3 years, and after 2 decide to withdraw, the penalty is the same as someone just locking for 1 year and deciding to remove straight away.

@Curia

One area to consider: post-launch accountability. Maybe we can do a 90-day review to track KPIs and address issues that surface after transferability.

This is a really good point - and 100% something that we should do.