Pyth Token Phase 2

Ideas Bank
3

:raising_hands: @dr497

Very nice to see this as it echoes a growing community interest around that topic (1, 2).

To your comments @TheDinarian

1. Recent revenue vs. treasury as the metric

Using recent revenue instead of the DAO treasury to decide how much the DAO should buy feels pretty similar anyway. And as it was mentioned in the original post, not all revenue is automatically transferred to the DAO treasury. So if we use recent revenue as the basis, we could end up in situations where the buyback amount is actually higher than what the DAO currently holds on Solana.

For practical and operational reasons, I’d lean toward @dr497 idea and use the DAO treasury since it’s easily accessible.

2. KPIs to measure the success of pricing decisions

In principle, I agree that proper KPIs should be defined to measure whether the pricing changes are successful. That said, in practice, setting up really solid KPIs will take a lot of work. I do like the ones you suggested though:

  1. Revenue – At the end of the day, this is what matters most (or close to it).

  2. Number of unique users – Relying heavily on one large user can have some short-term benefits (fewer stakeholders to manage), but it also increases risk if that user leaves.

The Pythian Council has already made fee changes in the past, and we should review those to see what worked and what didn’t:

  • opBNB, Cronos, Avalanche, and Sei have generally been successful in terms of both revenue and continued usage.

  • Swellchain and Worldchain have seen little usage, which may also be due to the chains themselves having limited activity.

3. Disclosure of DAO asset repatriation

I also agree that any repatriation of DAO-owned assets should be disclosed on the forum. In practice, this would most likely happen through OP-PIPs, since Pyth contracts would need to:

  1. Be upgraded to allow withdrawals of held assets, and

  2. Send those assets to the designated counterparty address.

10 Likes