Proposal: afCVX fee switch + distributing revenue to veASF holders

Proposal: afCVX fee switch + distributing revenue to veASF holders

Introduction:

For the last 573 days, Asymmetry has operated afCVX with zero user fees, giving CVX holders a place where they can take advantage of the most liquid CVX wrapper. Operating afCVX incurs costs to Asymmetry to run as all of the tending functionality (harvest, distribute, repay, unlock) incurring gas fees. For this entire time period, Asymmetry has run afCVX at its own expense to continue offering the best services at no cost to users.

Throughout this time, afCVX has proven its merit as the only place where users can earn above stkCVX yield with no impermanent loss AND withdraw for zero fees within just a few weeks or less. afCVX has yielded as high as 40%+, and has nearly 1.3m CVX locked as of writing.

Competitors to afCVX such as uCVX/pxCVX have a 7.5% fee on yield + up to a 5% fee on the entire principal balance.

Fees:

Over the last year, vlCVX has averaged ~20% APR. With this in mind, we can use simple math to get a ballpark for what fees may be reasonable.

If a 10% fee on yield was enacted, revenue could resemble the following.

$2.9m * 0.2 (20% APR) = $580,000 yield distributed per year * 0.1 (10% fee) = $58,000 in revenue per year

Note that the system is designed to have a fee on yield earned, not on principal balance. If having a fee on principal balance was desired by the community, this would require development time.

With afCVX’s proven and consistent high-yield, this fee would maintain afCVX amongst the very highest earning Convex wrappers.

Proposal:

Proposal to enact a 10% performance fee on the YIELD EARNED, minus $5k/yr for operating costs.

To distribute this yield earned automatically as USDaf for veASF holders to claim.

Math and Reasoning:

$2.9m * 0.2 (20% APR) = $580,000 yield distributed per year * 0.1 (10% fee) = $58,000 in revenue per year

Albeit a relatively small amount, afCVX revenue distribution provides immediate active and ongoing rewards for veASF holders, while simultaneously allowing further time for USDaf fee structure deliberation as this is seemingly yet to find a consensus/agreement amongst the community.

5 Likes

Looks good IMO. For now I think it is best to turn on afCVX fees + revenue to veASF, and to allow for Sunbeam to launch to then re-visit USDaf fee structure governance discussions as there’s not much consensus there yet The rev share from afCVX could grow significantly with CVX’s fluctuative price. (gib CVX $6+ again plz)

1 Like

Wouldn’t it be better to use the 58k to redirect towards the rewards and/or marketing and not dilute the current ASF holders?

2 Likes

What do you mean by dilute in this instance? IMO it’s better to give some value to veASF holders. We’re already well-prepped for the Sunbeam marketing push and beyond, plus reward efficiency is down right now amidst the bloody market

1 Like


opASF and ASF is being used to fund the rewards for these two pools.

I propose we move forward with the bot without fees on principal balance to go towards the DAO’s warchest. Once that is active, we can probably decide to fund other initiatives (bribes or whatnot) in 2026.

1 Like