The proposed 11M $PSP is in my view insufficient to reach the desired outcomes.
In January alone, the Paraswap v5: Augustus Swapper Mainnet contract registered c. 400 ETH of transfer gas for swappers, which would stand for 60% of the proposed annual budget (c. 690 ETH at current PSP/ETH price). On a 12m run-rate basis, the budget would therefore cover 14% of the gas paid on that contract only, which is negligible. And that’s assuming no growth in volume.
To both drive trading volume and incentivize PSP staking, then we should stick to the initial 30M suggested by @Lup. My proposal was designed to optimize the budget utilization by transferring the unused refund capacity (of the stakers) to traders in order to attract volume. If the budget is too low, the impact on trading volume will be very limited in my opinion.
We should view this budget as a leverage for Paraswap to gain market share and build volume stickiness (the NFT proposal). We should allocate accordingly.
