PSP 2.0 Renaissance - Social Escrow, Fee Redistribution, and Fairdrop

(Its my first ever comment in any gov)

Please do not forget about the loyal users who have been staking psp for a few months, we also want to be appreciated and receive some fairdrop, we trusted you so please reward us for the fact that even when the price has dropped by 98%, we still support the project by staking/swaping psp tokens



do not forget about the loyal users


Ok, so like @dydymoon said, it is unclear what is accountable for Voting Power and what is accountable for ParaBoot Score .

1 Like

Staking will be used for voting power & ParaBoot for Protocol revenue share.

If we take these examples:

A user stakes 100k PSP, trades $100M, brings $100M volume through referrals
ParaBoost = 192k PSP ( 100k *1.6 * 1.2 )
Voting Power = 100k PSP

A user stakes 100k PSP + ETH (20%) in sePSP2, trades $100M, brings $100M volume through referrals
ParaBoost = 480k PSP (100k * 2.5 * 1.6 * 1.2)
Voting Power = 250k PSP ( 100k * 2.5 )


OK, thank you for the clarification!

1 Like

I’m so thrilled to see this proposal has gathered so much engagement! The ideas and discussion that I am seeing are absolutely invaluable, and makes me even more confident that the final proposal will be amazing. I wanted to share a couple of my thoughts on some discussion ideas to be able to decide how to best go forward:


After reading through most reactions to the fairdrop, I think we can all agree that it should not launch in its current state.

Since the final Fairdrop criteria were meant to go on a separate vote to be approved anyway, I suggest we create its own dedicated thread to discuss it further

The idea of the fairdrop was to invite members that initially felt excluded from the DAO to rejoin the conversation, but alternative solutions can be worked on that the community would agree more with!

On separating discussion

As already mentioned, I agree that it is best to separate the discussion of the fairdrop, as both that one and the GovCo votes were meant to be put in another vote in the future. However, any further splitting might un-intuitively lead to even less productive discussion.

One point that I find is important is the atomicity of these sections. Separating the discussions makes sense if some of these sections can pass a vote while others do not (such as the fairdrop and GovCo member elections), but all other sections are linked and rely on each other. Without the fee redistribution, there is little point in the ParaBoost system or staking mechanisms. Without GovCo the voting changes, sePSP will not be the voting token of choice, and we will not have a framework to handle future proposals that could occur from introducing such a major system.

Offchain boosts and sePSP adjustments

The suggestions on how to make the sePSP system more balanced and better distributed are amazing, so thank you to everyone who has suggested ways to make them even more fair (shoutout to @enerow , @xtatik and @maxax , go check their posts!). You all raised very good points that the formulae could easily be adjusted to be more socially oriented.

Regarding the contributor boosts, that is something that was on the original draft of Social Escrow. However, in the end I arrived to the same conclusion as other DAO members, that these contributions are better suited to be handled on the Social DAO level rather than the PSP Protocol level.

Fee redistribution should be as easy to decentralize and as trustless as possible, which means it is best to only account on-chain quantifiable variables. Anyone should be able to recalculate the distribution on their own end. Because of this, it might be better to leave these contributions to a system on the DAO.

sePSP2 and other clarifications

Finally, here are some miscellaneous clarifications that I thought are worth mentioning:

  • sePSP2 will receive a 2x value increase in both voting power and the ParaBoost. This is the only boost that will be applied on both levels, with all other ones being only concerning to fee redistribution. This is to further incentivize the contributions of liquidity
  • A zk badge was considered for ParAccounts, but ultimately they would not have been beneficial. This is because all the data is available on-chain. The main purpose of the ParAccount is for ease of use of users who wish to separate these activities but want to accumulate their boost in one ParaBoost.
  • The window to claim with a small delay is being suggested to reduce abuse of the system and reward users that are actively engaging in the protocol. The fee situation is a valid concern, but its going to be resolved once we expand 2.0 to go full multichain. A roll-up claim function could be considered.
  • Finally, adding a flat 0.1% fee to all trades through ParaSwap sounds like a good idea, but considering that the main purpose of the protocol is to deliver the best prices, it would render us too uncompetitive. Other forms of revenue accumulation can be discussed once PSP 2.0 is accounted for.

Doesn’t participation in governance votes fall within this framework? I think that the interest of the protocol is to involve as many holders as possible.

Will multi-chain staking be implemented at the same time as PSP 2.0?
Today small stakers are on Ethereum, so they will be disqualified while waiting for a possible rollup or they will have to pay bridge fees?

We can roll out new chains quickly after the launch


It’s easy to game, and I am not sure how efficient that will be… The goal of PSP 2.0 is to bring more volume & users. The incentive to participle in governance is natural because each participant will be behind the success of the protocol.


Truly happy about the platform changes. Im a hardcore psp user and got left out of the airdrop. Not gonna be a sour loser. Just kept using it because platform is so good.


in depth and i like it. can be summarized slightly but i enjoy the depth.

The Paraswap twitter account is releasing summaries of the section every day, make sure to check them out!


I understand. Not insisting on this point.

I can see the problems that would be caused by the obligation to claim the rewards within a certain period of time, but I have difficulties to see the benefits.
What kind of abuse are you thinking of?
Within the defined time limit of two Epochs, a user would have to claim every two months. Does this really help to define that a user is actively engaging in the protocol?

Hello everyone!
I really like the Fairdrop idea!
However you should not forget about $PSP stakers! Leaving your real supporters behind won’t be cool!

I totally agree with the idea to separate the different discussions.

This idea is very interesting.

Interesting idea but the different boosts are high. 10%, 15%,… until 35% may be more suitable.

I agree wit Dydymoon and Enerow, I don´t think this is necessary, more speculator.

I totally agree with that.

1 Like

I have difficulties to see the benefits as well.

1 Like


Even if the claiming process is going to happen in Ethereum mainnet, the transaction is unlikely to be very gas intensive, as it will be a simple claim function. We can see what the final gas cost is going to be, and if necessary, the rewards expiration time can be revised by the Governance Committee during the initial 6 epoch period. And even then, with new chain deployments coming in the future, additional options would become available in the future.

The importance of fee expiration in the redistribution regards ensuring that funds are not lost on addresses that are lost/inactive. Without the expiration period, many of the protocol fees will be permanently lost, bringing a large source of inefficiency to the new system.

Regarding the balance booster, I think it’s a good opportunity to give people that also have PSP on other chains a boost while we port PSP 2.0 to other systems. The reason we are also including balances in ETH is because it fees unfair to boost all other chains but ETH, but we can change this idea if needed.

1 Like

I totally agree with you and I think it’s the best way to do it!
But we could go further than 2 months and still fight against lost wallets.

I assume that a 6 months period would be enough to allow small net-worth wallets to be able to claim without loosing too much on smart contract execution fees (think about ETH price 2/3/4X or more and activity on Ethereum network growing even in bear market).

The main purpose is to get as much new users and investors as possible, even if they’re small fishes. Now if all the rewards/apr earned goes to smart contrat execution fees we’re going to close the door to potential new supporters/stakers.

I think that, if we want the “Social Escrow” model to succeed, we need to design every element of the model with the main goal of being accessible by most of the people.