Jaoda, thank you for your feedback; your posts as always, help to move our collective discussion forward. I’ll apologize if poor proposal structuring led to a misinterpretation of what this proposal is seeing to approve.
This proposal is actually seeking what you felt in your post was a subject for another discussion: “We can allocate a portion of fees to build GMX Treasury, earning and compounding fees, but this is subject to another discussion.”
This proposal is to put into the DAOs control 10% of a set of the future fee streams from V2 (not from GLP/V1) and then discuss allocating to specific purposes, retained or distributed as the DAO sees fit; this proposal doesn’t spend any funds and is not remotely a proposal to allocate 20m towards just development.
Why allocate to the DAO?
You asked how much money will be required for sustainable development or in the future. This depends to a great extent on the DAO having a desired direction and the ability to fund those specific activities. Do we want to focus on integration on v2? feature iteration on v2? Build out a new product? Multiple products? Create our product within an app chain? Add more groups of contributors? Or maybe some or all of the above? These are the questions the DAO needs to engage in.
Contributors had visibility when the DAO voted on the current direction that brought us to the product now called V2 and have maintained operations through Labs utilizing the approved funding from the bonding program. What this proposal does is set out that we need to start investing in ourselves to have the resources to back these.
In terms of your idea of allocating the ARB airdrop into GLP to earn a 20% APR, governance can weigh in on how this airdrop or other treasury assets (POL, former floor fund, etc…) are utilized. For reference with a view of conservatism, currently, much of the protocol assets have been kept either within POL, held as stables & ETH (partially backing the immunify bounty program), and some amounts of GLP accumulated as part of the earlier floor fund program.
GLP Returns
Rather than cover this content again will ask the community to look at the posts in the forum related to V2 Protocol Fees, to address the point raised about return levels for GLP.
Why 10%
Previously, the DAO was retaining 20% of protocol fees towards building its treasury, before deciding to allocate these amounts to help bootstrap additional liquidity in GLP. Today the protocol has delivered on the product, achieving product market fit and has deep integrations making GMX a key protocol and partner in the ecosystems we are present in.
The launch of V2 was and is a natural point to reassess and determine what allocation should be applied for those new markets, and 10% is not a number with an exact science. There is no visibility on how quickly V2 markets will be adopted or their fee earning potential, it is possible that over time if V2 does or does not achieve the type of market fit that GLP has. The DAO may decide to change both the amount it retains or simply allocate them to a single use as it did with GLP and fund development in a different fashion.
Do i believe some of these funds should be allocated to support development and/or earmarked for specific reserves and uses, absolutely but it will be the DAO that has the responsibility for determining the best allocation of resources toward growing the platform and securing its future, this proposal simply starts the process.