As we move towards a simplification of rewards calculation, a question arises.
Should we carry on to rewards with ETH? Or should we change for rewards in PSP?
Most of the protocols reward their stakers with their own token. Why not us?
3 Likes
Hey @Julio this is an interesting thought! An idea that came to mind now: A 50% - 50% split of ETH and PSP (with some linear vesting and penalty for premature claiming). This will resume PSP redistribution with limited downside while still rewarding the community for its contribution
1 Like
Hey @Lup This is an interesting thought as well. I understand the idea.
From my perspective, i like to focus on simple mechanism. We are going to simplify the calculation of the rewards, which is a good thing. We should stay on this line. Simple and easy thing/mechanism, brings confidence and trust. For me at least.
On the other side, i totally agree with:
I think - contrary to what has been said yesterday by a DAO member - that we should keep the PSP token, and by rewarding the stakers with only PSP we show also that we are fully confident in our token.
It would be interesting to know what are doing the stakers with their rewards? Are they buying more PSP to stake them? Can we get this information somehow?
What is for you the point to split the rewards in 2?
2 Likes
We have already commented on a similar idea in another post - in this case to change the distribution of fees to stakers from the current 100% in ETH to 90% in ETH and 10% in sePSP1 - in the sense that it could have a positive impact, so we refer to it:
However, we would like to reiterate the risks we have warned about, which could also lead to a change in the distribution of the 20% of the fees destined to the DAO treasury.
The DAO treasury serves two basic functions: security and protocol growth. In both cases, it is counterproductive to concentrate 50% of the DAO’s treasury incomes in the protocol token - especially considering that a large portion of the DAO’s treasury is currently in the PSP - so the fees destined to the DAO’s treasury should be kept in ETH, or at most in the USDC or a combination of both. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the fees distribution destinated to the DAO’s treasury remain unchanged.
3 Likes
I am not talking about treasury of the DAO. Just the rewards for the stakers. Would be interesting to know what the stakers make with their rewards once claimed. If we agree that most of them use this ETH to buy PSP to stake them, then rewards directly in PSP makes more sense. As you can see on others major projects.
2 Likes
The idea is to buy back PSP on the market using the 80% protocol fees and then distribute it to stakers?
Yes, this is the idea. Is it too complicated to operate?
You stake PSP because you believe in ParaSwap. So you get rewarded in PSP.
10% or more of sePSP1 is not efficient. Each of us will decide which % of the rewards he wants to stake.
The only reason I see to not reward stakers with PSP would be the possible sales pressure. That’s why it would be interested to know what the stakers are doing with their rewards.
But once again, if the buy back of PSP on the market using the 80% protocol fees is not complicate or inefficient or too expensive, then the simple solution is often the best 
2 Likes
Great! I think checking on-chain will be interesting but it may bring false positives as the reward is in ETH rn. I think distributing PSP should definitely come with some type of vesting and maybe a possibility to convert into an sePSP2 as we have now with sePSP1.
2 Likes
I was thinking checking , once claimed , if the ETH are used to buy PSP to stake them. This should be possible. I assume that when you want to stake your rewards (ETH), you do it directly.
1 Like
Or a small boost for the one choosing rewards in sePSP1, and a bigger one for the one choosing rewards in sePSP2? And no boost for the one choosing rewards in ETH.
2 Likes
I’m inclined to advocate for keeping the current reward structure as is, as it’s been thoughtfully designed to strengthen the protocol long-term rather than boost instant gains or make PSP bounce in price. However to enhance a potential gradual value increase in PSP a possible solution could involve swapping the ETH component within the BPT with a liquid staked token. This would allow stETH/ankrETH/rETH component to appreciate and tipping some value toward PSP over time as the LSTs gains yield.
I feel I need to shout out to PSP stakers and comunity that I believe our collective goal here isn’t rapid wealth but setting the foundation for a sustainable, global economic layer application where major DeFi dApps continue to integrate us. PSP already offers significant intrinsic value with features like gas fee refunds, in my opinion a staking primitive unique to DeFi. Value will flow into PSP over time and it will be organic true adoption growth aligning with our vision to build resilient, foundational infrastructure for the future of Web3. Lets keep as is and review this at a later stage.
On a last note I agree treasury should carefully address the sizes of PSP it gathers as it can attract backlash for selling for business upkeep unless we can advocate for a lending protocol to integrate and PSP to be used as collateral 
then different story… healthy borrow pay back mechanisms,
Why are we not using CRV for liquidity pool to allow treasury to capture cheap CRV ve lock and vote for incentives that will open door slightly for Llamalend or crvUSD borrow ? happy to assist but not sure why we decided to go BPT ? in the end PSP rewards have a lengthy lock period that would protect for high volatility due to fees reimbursement … probs to many topics to touch … wiill stick around frens
Will there be enough liquidity to buy k$ of PSP ?