PSP-IPΔX: Proposal Paraswap Fee Collector V2


PSP 2.0, Fee Sharing, Automation

Simple Summary

This proposal suggests multiple updates and additions to ParaSwap’s current environment for collecting fees, such as transitioning to wETH, upgrading to handle multiple AugustusSwapper versions, introducing a new FeeClaimer contract, and implementing a new fee collection for partners. Additionally, the proposal includes the integration of a new Permissions Manager component and finalizing the testing period by activating Mimic’s fee. The updates are expected to take around three weeks to complete after the proposal’s approval.

Current status

The environment for ParaSwap has been running successfully for two periods across seven networks: Ethereum Mainnet, BNB Smart Chain, Avalanche, Polygon, Fantom, Arbitrum, and Optimism. Throughout these periods, we have made some adjustments to the gas configuration to optimize performance. Additionally, we have upgraded the process for withdrawing swapped assets from a manual to an automated operation, which has improved the overall efficiency of the environment.


We have received several requests to change different aspects of ParaSwap’s environment, and it makes sense to group them together into a new proposal. By consolidating these requests into a single proposal, we can evaluate and prioritize these changes more efficiently.


1. Swap to wETH

Currently, all collected tokens are swapped to the wrapped native token on each network. However, the ParaSwap team proposed that it would be more convenient for distribution purposes if all environments swapped to wETH. Otherwise, it has to be done manually.

:white_check_mark: To implement this change, we will need to update the collect and swap action to swap to wETH on the current environment across all chains.

2. Multiple Augustus versions

ParaSwap is continually enhancing its platform by adding new routers. The environment will need to handle multiple routers and ensure a smooth transition between them.

:white_check_mark: To implement this change, we need to create a new connector that can handle a new router, update our bots to use it, and integrate it into the current environment.

3. Multiple Fee Claimers

ParaSwap may also launch new Fee Claimer contracts that the environment needs to collect assets from. These new contracts will also need to coexist with their previous version.

:white_check_mark: To implement this change, we will need to update the new collect and swap action to include new fee claimer contracts on all supported chains.

4. Partner fee claimer

The last requirement is to collect and swap fees that ParaSwap obtains from partners. However, since sometimes claiming address is unchangeable on the partner’s smart contracts, the environment will need to use the existing contracts that have permission to obtain them.

:white_check_mark: To implement this change, we need to update the current collect and swap action to obtain partner fees via the authorized contracts.

May 10, 2023 - Amendment to Original Proposal

Thank you all for your interest and engagement in the proposal. Based on discussions and alignments with ParaSwap core developers, the proposal will be complemented with additional features, some of which were part of the original plan. The ultimate goal is to contribute to the complete automation of ParaSwap’s fee redistribution cycle. In addition to the updates and requirements previously mentioned, the following elements will be incorporated:

5. ParaBoost automation

The merkle root responsible for managing the ParaBoost score during each epoch will be updated automatically. This will help to ensure that the score remains up-to-date on time each epoch and accurately reflects the current state of the platform.

:white_check_mark: To implement this change, a new automation task will need to be developed that interacts with the ParaBoost component and PS API.

6. 80/20 Withdrawal

The 80/20 withdrawal distribution model will be automated. This means that 80% of the withdrawn assets will be directed to the Distribution Controller, a ParaSwap component, and will go directly to the ParaBoost system. The remaining 20% will be allocated to the DAO treasury. This allocation ratio remains adjustable, allowing the owner to modify percentages in accordance with future updates or needs.

:white_check_mark: To implement this change, the withdrawal task needs to be modified to include the Distribution Controller and the DAO treasury as recipients, and allocate the assets according to the 80/20 split.


A fully non-custodial and trustless solution for bridging assets across each supported chain directly to the Ethereum Mainnet will be provided. This will improve the overall interoperability and efficiency of the platform by allowing seamless cross-chain transactions.

:white_check_mark: To implement this change, a new bridging mechanism will need to be developed that can securely and transparently facilitate cross-chain asset transfers without relying on any third-party custodians.

These additional features will further enhance the automation and efficiency of ParaSwap’s fee redistribution cycle, ensuring a more seamless experience for all. Moving forward, any future changes will be thoughtfully considered and assessed in line with the evolving needs of the platform. Our total timeline of deployments is 4 weeks once the snapshot is approved.

New component

We are pleased to integrate the Permission Manager component into the environment, as part of these updates. This new component will make it easier to manage permissions and simplify changes and migrations.

Fee model

As of now, Mimic has not charged any fees as we have been in a testing period. However, in order to proceed with the changes, we plan to finalize the testing period and activate the fee. Going forward, Mimic will charge a 2% fee for assets processed through the Smart Vaults, subject to a monthly cap of 10,000 USD. While the cap has been increased from the previous proposal, it’s worth noting that there will be no deployment or setup fee associated with this fee structure.


The timeline has been planned giving priority to the most critical updates such as swapping to wETH, partner fee claimer, and the implementation of multiple fee claimers. The update for multiple Augustus connectors will be incorporated afterward.

Updates Business days
Swap to wETH
Partner fee claimer
Multiple Fee claimers 10
Multiple Augustus connector 5

Overall, it will take approximately three weeks to complete all of the updates and implement the new features once this proposal has been accepted.



Good evening,

First of all, thanks for this update and the work done on the first 2 epochs.
As usual, I’ll be the advocate of the unhappy.
I am a little surprised by this update and the way it is brought, let me explain:

First, you the monthly cap from the old proposal that you had set at $5000USD. So you double it?
You did not mention it here.

Secondly, I am surprised, even though the smart vault is still in test, you are “surprised” of the updates necessary for them to be efficient on the long term. Paraswap is evolving and so should you? Wasn’t this predictable?

We are at epoch 3, you are still in test phase (although soon finished) and already you ask for extensions?

Why not prove your efficiency over a few epochs, add up the needs and updates and then ask to review your pricing at its fair value, a value that seemed fair to you at the initial vote:
I quote from your proposal
3. Fees
Mimic will charge a 2% fee for the assets processed through the Smart Vaults with a 5K USD monthly cap. Fees will start at 0% and increase by 0.5% every three months to reach 2% after a year of execution.

I am not questioning your work or your technology. However, I doubt that asking for a change in fees now is precipitous (even if it is not astronomical after all).

What should we expect next? Increases with each new partner? each new Blockchain? each upgrade?

I’m a bit confused, I grant you.
Looking forward to reading you


Hello and thank you for your proposal!

Wasn’t this already included in the original proposal?

The different points of your proposal seem to justify the start of the fees and the increase of the threshold.
Although some of the points mentioned are changes to be made by Mimic to accommodate ParaSwap, the point above is an assumption of future change.

If you want to change the terms of the original proposal, I think you should only consider the updates you need to make or have made, not the ones you potentially will make.

I’m not going to comment on some of the technical points because I simply can’t!

However, I think it would be useful to have a educational approach with the members of the ParaSwap DAO who are not all technically minded and who may be asking themselves the following questions:

  • You mention a new component with the Permission Manager component.
    Can you define its role, its interest for ParaSwap?

  • The processing of fees and their transfer seems to be working as we have not had any feedback to the contrary.
    Do you have any data on the work done? (amounts, gas spent, amount recovered initially/amount recovered on the wallet; you probably know better than I do the metrics to see the success of your activity)
    Is Mimic’s success/assessment criteria only the arrival of fees or there are performance metrics that can be measured? How can the DAO assess if the service proposed is done properly and efficiently?

  • Given that passing through the smart vault is a condition of fees, do all fees pass through the smart vault or only those tokens that need to be swapped? (Which would potentially exclude WETH/ETH from Mimic fees?)

  • I may have missed it, do you have any infographics to make available to the DAO on the tokens collected, transferred, by network, etc?

Finally, as mentioned by @stikers , the initial proposal indicated the information below:


You propose to change:

  • The monthly cap from 5K USD to 10K USD.
  • Starting fees asap instead of seventh epoch (which was the announced trial period)

Can you elaborate on why you would update the initial conditions of this partnership ?

Also for the sake of detail, if you check last months fees, 2% fees wouldn’t never go above the 5K$ ceiling (except from the exceptionnal USDC march month).
We are all bullish on ParaSwap and the increase of fees / revenue in the futur, it would be interesting to hear the reason of this unexpected increase.

I look forward to hearing from you and the community!


I’m also a bit confuse on some requirements (maybe a team member can highlight us on the real needs of them)

It make sense to me but does it also means that yield will be in wETH now? (It will be more expensive in that case for users to claim it)

I’m little bit confuse on these points (if team can confirm) but I was thinking that only one version of the Augustus & FeeClaimer is active at a time (what I understood from the doc).
Otherwise, does it means that currently the smart vault only handle v5 from Augustus ?

Does it not make sense to update partner’s smart contract and align all claiming address? Or simplify the contract to use a global address in the contract handled by a getter/setter ?

It make me feel that the Permission Manager component you want to add it’s one of your solution and it will have a lot of power in the architecture. However I can’t find it on your github and no mention in your doc and audit.

I have the same feeling than @Albist and @stikers, even if the amount is fair.
We had voted and approved a one-year agreement that is reviewed after 2 months (especially for the testing period).
And as you said ParaSwap is continually enhancing its platform does it means that every new update/feature that hasn’t be taken into account in the initial proposal will required contract adjustment? I means that point 2, 3 and 4 was here before PSP 2.0 and already knew


Hi All, GovCo here

Thanks for your feedback on the proposal so far. This proposal was discussed at the last Govco meeting and a few comments from our side

We are overall supportive of the proposal. There is one question on our side though, we were under the impression that bridging of ETH across to Ethereum was included in the last proposal. Can you give us an update there on that and include it in your roadmap?

Other than the above point, we believe that Mimic has delivered on its promises effectively in the first 3 epochs allowing Protocol Fees to be automatically swapped into native chain tokens and facilitating the PSP 2.0 distribution process. As indicated in the original proposal. Mimic has said they won’t charge any fee during the test period. However, we understand that the new changes requested by ParaSwap in this proposal (which were not part of the initial scope) are necessary to make the swap and distribution process cleaner and more efficient while keeping up with current needs and upcoming confirmed changes.

As long as we can get comfortable with the bridging work (question above), we believe it’s fair to consider the test period over now and for Mimic to start getting paid

There were a few other questions/comments from the threads above that we’ll also try to help address;

Wasn’t swap to wETH included in the original proposal?

To clarify, the original proposal included the swap of fees to the native token on each chain, which is what Mimis is currently doing.

Multiple Fee Claimers: the point above is an assumption of future change.

Working with the ParaSwap core team, this is aligned to our vision in the short term

The processing of fees and their transfer seems to be working as we have not had any feedback to the contrary.

This is something the ParaSwap Core team is aware of (Mimic too). It can be improved to be smoother and easily done. The above changes will help in doing so.

Partner fee claimer: Does it not make sense to update partner’s smart contract and align all claiming address? Or simplify the contract to use a global address in the contract handled by a getter/setter?

Unfortunately, this is sometimes set by Partner conditions that can’t be changed from ParaSwap side. This would be for those cases

1 Like

I find that respecting a contract is a sign of trust.
3 epochs is not much to talk about success, 6 epochs is not much in the life of a company. The 6 epochs of testing were useful and will help to establish the credibility and efficiency of Mimic.

The initial $5k was also consistent with the work to be done initially.
At the end of the day, let’s not forget that they are renting a technology that automates a process.
A 5k dollars per month rental that once established (and it seems that it is already the case because they ask us to interrupt the test period) will only require a watch from Mimic, to prevent possible bugs. This is normal and commendable but it should not justify so many changes after only 3 epochs.

Far be it from me to denigrate the process or the team.
But it is necessary to be sensible, to finish what has been voted in the first place and then possibly review the contract, but with the necessary hindsight. 3 epochs is not a step backwards, it is a small step backwards at most.

This partnership is a long-term partnership. Paraswap is made for the long term, there is no point in Mimic pushing the contracts like this if they want to invest in the long term with us.

Hey all, thanks for all the insightful feedback and raising these concerns. We appreciate your comments on keeping us accountable. The primary objective of this proposal is to accommodate the updates and modifications requested by the ParaSwap team to enhance the platform’s infrastructure efficiency and utility for the protocol with a strong commitment for a long-term relationship and collaboration between both projects.

As for the predictability of the updates, we recognize that ParaSwap’s ecosystem is continuously evolving, and we aim to adapt and improve our services accordingly. While we anticipated some changes, the specific updates mentioned in the proposal were not known in advance. We are committed to staying agile and responsive to the needs of the community and the protocol.

  1. Regarding the monthly cap increase: We apologize for any confusion regarding the increase in the monthly cap to USD 10,000. ParaSwap is big environment running on production, we have a relayer bot network, running for every chain 24/7 and monitoring all the transactions constantly. Importantly, by structuring our fees in this manner, we can avoid charging any other fee like setup or support. This change has been proposed to account for the additional updates, increased complexity of the ParaSwap environment, and to address any future needs and real-time support for the ParaSwap team. Anyway we are matching this proposal exactly as other protocols using mimic. We understand the concern and assure you that the cap increase is meant to proactively accommodate the evolving requirements of the protocol while maintaining a sustainable and mutually beneficial partnership. As @Albist said, we never would reach the cap with this past numbers, any way we are bullish on ParaSwap and we want to be prepared for the future.

  2. Regarding the Permission Manager: It simplifies changes and migrations by enabling users to modify multiple permissions simultaneously within a single transaction, resulting in significant gas cost savings. Additionally, we are working closely with the Certora Team to conduct a formal audit, ensuring the security and reliability of the Permission Manager component. This will be needed when we deploy all the new changes.

  3. Bridging: Initially, bridging was not deemed necessary, as it allowed the team to maintain control over specific interactions. However, in light of recent developments, we can add bridging into this new proposal and setting into the roadmap with a date for its implementation. We currently utilize the Hop Protocol to bridge Optimism, Arbitrum and Polygon, and we plan to expand our bridging capabilities to include the remaining chains later this year. Our approach is to cautiously grow the range of bridge providers while ensuring the stability and security of the overall ecosystem.

  4. We propose to provide a comprehensive report detailing all fees processed on each supported chain on a quarterly basis, offering increased transparency and insight into the ParaSwap ecosystem’s performance of the fee collection across networks.

hey! Thanks for providing more details.
I will then support the proposal (as the team and govCo support it also).

However, I’m wondering some stuff:

Does it means that if in a near future Paraswap launches an NFT aggregator market feature or a bridge aggregator. The setup cost will already be covered.

Is it possible to get these report at the end of each epoch? As we have 7d to see our rewards, having the details at the same time would be a proof of transparency.

Thank you for your feedback.

As I am very interested in your system, I would like to have, please, a detailed estimate of the charges that we incur and the price that is allocated to them.

This would allow us to be more comfortable with your tarif system and the possible evolutions over time. This would allow us to better understand the difference between the first proposal and the second.

A comparaison of the two would also be appreciated to understand the difference of price.

I look forward to hearing from you.

1 Like

In response to your first question, as of now, we do not support NFTs. However, making modifications to the current environment, such as adding a bridge aggregator or swap aggregator, is indeed included.
Regarding your question about receiving reports at the end of each epoch: You can actually track your rewards in real-time through the Paraswap dashboard on Mimic’s site at Mimic - Automating how to interact with DeFi. We’re continuously working on enhancing the dashboard, and will be adding more information and filters to it in the near future.



I am taking the liberty of asking you again because I think it is important to know the tariff structure of what the dao pays.
This will also allow us to understand future changes
Thank you in advance


I don’t think it’s acceptable to be as volatile as you are on previous agreements. It’s been only 90 days and you’re already doubling the price cap of your product.

That’s why I think we shouldn’t accept any quotation without long term (2 years or more) pricing agreement.

By developing our profit sharing system on your solution, we are tied to you with little or no backup solution. If you decide, again, in the future, to raise prices unexpectedly, as you are trying to do now.

Your product is great, your way of making business is wrong.


Hello everyone, I appreciate your patience. We’ve updated the proposal. The ultimate goal is to contribute to the complete automation of ParaSwap’s fee redistribution cycle. We anticipate a timeline of four weeks for deployment once the snapshot is approved. Thank you!

1 Like

I am sorry. But I would really like to have a detailed price list of your services

1 Like

I’m sorry to see that you’re throwing votes around without even answering all the questions.
Enerow had mentioned the fact of locking in rates with you over a given time, to better secure our contract with you. Nothing that was written by our DAO was heard or discussed.
The principle of a DAO is to work together in the best possible way and not to go it alone.
The support of a part of the government does not mean that you have found a consensus with the DAO.

I’ll put the link here so that everyone can vote according to their own conscience.

For my part, I don’t like your silence and the way you are proceeding.
You will have to review your copy and your means of communication so that I agree with you.



I did not expect to see this type of practice from a partner.
I will keep it simple because It says a lot about you.
I think, it would be better for Paraswap DAO to do some research now to find another partner or system for fee collection.

On the one hand I am reassured that this type of practice happens from the beginning that once well launched and integrated into our business model.

Of course i’m against

We recently published the proposal aimed at achieving the deployment of the fully automated cross-chain environment for Paraswap before for the next epoch. This is a complex and dynamic solution; with this approval, we prioritize Paraswap in our roadmap to start ASAP.

Mimic offers solutions that include a fee for each asset processed. This fee covers the cost of infrastructure, support, maintenance, monitoring, swap connector (PS) updates, bridging, addressing new claims from PS providers, ParaBoost update automation, and split withdrawals and future minor updates to tasks on current Smart Vaults. It’s crucial to clarify that Mimic is not increasing the fee. The existing fee will remain the same. As we aim to maintain a long-term relationship with ParaSwap, we are amending the contract to raise the future max-cap to 10k. Based on our historical fee data, this cap is not projected to be reached in the near future.
We are always open to any inquiries, and as stated earlier, our ultimate goal is to contribute to the complete automation of ParaSwap’s fee redistribution cycle, a plan that we are progressively approaching.


A response that comes a little late. Discussions are held upstream, not downstream.

If I were you, I would withdraw this vote and take the time to formulate a clear and above all complete proposal.
Furthermore, we need to add contractual mentions concerning prices, the duration of the contract, possible penalties for us and for you, etc.

We know that you are doing a good job, but each of our two entities must guard against abuse. And in this case no one can protect themselves from either of you.

You want the long term? Then let’s do it right.

1 Like

Hi! this is Daniel from Mimic. First off, I’d like to apologize if there were any aspects of the proposal that weren’t as clear as they should have been and we moved on with the snapshot. A lot of the time-sensitive requirements arose from our collaborative work with the core team, aimed at fully automating ParaSwap and avoiding human error situations like this.

Our set of requirements grew compared to the initial proposal, and while we didn’t want to increase the fee, it seemed reasonable to raise the future cap given the additional components we now have to manage, monitor, audit and modify going forward. This cap is in line with what we have with other clients using the same solution.

For the past five months, our systems have been operating, during which we’ve incurred substantial deployment costs and have yet to collect any fees. If we charged the 2% fee last month, it would amount to roughly $2500 per month. Maintaining the automation involves several components that need constant monitoring, updating, and tweaking as necessary, along with the integration of new networks as they emerge.

I hope this provides some clarity regarding the cap issue. We firmly believe in the importance of a long-term partnership for both parties and will strive to be as transparent as possible. If there’s been any confusion, I apologize for any lack of clarity on our part.

1 Like

This mea culpa is more than appreciable and speaks volumes about your desire to do well. I thank you for this and personally, I appreciate it.
However, we were on a 6 month test period when we first proposed the project, so I think we can largely consider an additional time for reflection.

The desire is not to slow down the process but to obtain a proposal that will include the requirements and needs of everyone.

We must, and I repeat, work together on a more contractual vision of the proposal.

What about the problems you may encounter?
Who guarantees the funds if one of your modules has a problem?
What penalty in case of late payment from us or from your delivery.
Who will be in charge of the dialogue between your entity and the DAO. Today brunito tomorrow you? We need to have a clear link and a referent IMO
What is the outlook for your prices? In less than 4 months, you multiply them by 2, I would like to see as @enerow suggested a ceiling on a specific duration.

In short, we will work together. Let’s do everything possible to ensure that everyone is serene about this partnership.