I have some thoughts regarding the proposed distributor network.
Conceptually, it makes sense, as it enables the Pyth DAO to utilize distributors’ diverse networks and geographic reach for faster market penetration, provided we identify suitable distributors.
To ensure consistency and prevent undercutting that could erode revenue, there should be a baseline pricing structure, while still allowing them the flexibility to tailor offerings to various client types.
I suggest the DAO considers various alternatives to the somewhat arbitrary 60-40 revenue split. For example, what if it was a variable revenue-sharing model tied to the amount of $PYTH a distributor stakes in governance. For example, a distributor not staking any $PYTH would receive a baseline revenue share of, say, 20% (or whatever reasonable percentage sufficient to cover cost of sales and provide a modest margin). In contrast, a distributor who stakes $PYTH could earn a larger percentage, potentially up to 40% or more, based on a tiered system.
Such an approach would align distributors’ interests with Pyth’s success as $PYTH token holders. It would motivate distributor performance, encourage participation in governance, and promote decentralization by incentivizing broader distribution of influence among stakeholders. Currently, the concentration of $PYTH stakers is still heavily skewed toward top holders, and this model could help address that imbalance.
Taking this concept further, we could also extend incentives to TradFi clients by offering rebates on their data subscriptions based on the amount of $PYTH they stake (similar to another idea I shared previously). While it may be challenging for some TradFi clients to own and stake $PYTH, it shouldn’t stop us from exploring such incentives, which would be appreciated by the more web3-savvy clients. Obstacles to token ownership should only diminish over time, based on current trends. TradFi clients will also represent a key stakeholder group whose participation in governance would bring value to the DAO and further enhance decentralization.
If designed effectively, such mechanisms would increase the utility and demand for the $PYTH token, boosting value for token holders. More importantly, they would help the Pyth DAO achieve a more meaningful degree of decentralization - a DAO not just in name, but in practice.