Temperature Check - Should fee sharing be implemented as soon as possible?

Fee sharing is an important development that will bring buy pressure to the token.

Fee sharing has already been promised for months and it will reward long term holders that accumulated vePTP and did not sell PTP protecting project liquidity and future. More than that it will increase token buy pressure and project valorization. Therefore there are only positive reasons to implement fee sharing as soon as possible.

Next Steps
After Tempurature Check is approved a Consensus Check Proposal in snapshot will be published and voted. If the proposal is approved the team will need to implement the fee sharing algorithm and deploy it to production.

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

1 Like

I think we should allocate 50% of fee sharing to compensate the people who lost with the hack then after they made whole then allocate 100% to veptp holders

( btw I didn’t lose anything during the hack cause i was only staking ptp not stables but i think this the best for the protocol long run)

1 Like

No way…welcome to Crypto…use at your own risk!

1 Like

Despite having been hacked I believe that currently it is not beneficial to split the low commissions… the truth is that we need to attract new capital and commissions could bring a higher APR and an incentive to hold PTP… this could lead to a stable o increase in the price of PTP which could consequently invent new users to deposit stablecoins… for capital efficiency it is very important to increase the liquidity of the main pool as it increases the possibility to trade large quantities of stablecoins without affecting the coverage ratio and to excel over other protocols

Totally agree with EntropyManaged earlier comment. I am getting tired of reading all these “make users whole” comments - especially on discord. Crypto+Defi are about the riskiest things you can do with your money - if you want security then keep your money in a regulated bank or under your mattress.
The team are working to return any recovered funds, which is great - but this should be seen as a bonus, most hacks leave you with nothing.

Why stop at making users whole for the hack ? Why not ask for all your losses back after the price crashed over 90%?

I have lost money on PTP and let’s face it, we probably all have, but as adults we need to take the consequences for our actions and if you invest in something that is known to have risks you can’t really start crying when bad things happen.


As a counterpoint to @EntropyManaged’s point that we all are adults that know it’s caveat emptor in defi and that most users don’t get made whole after hacks, I would say this:

Most protocols do not recover from hacks:

TLDR A survey of the top five hacks in dollar terms shows that each protocol’s total value locked is down by at least 96 since it was hacked.”

1 possible way to overcome this fact: make users whole to salvage Platypus’ reputation.

I’m not saying that making everyone whole is the only way for Platypus to move forward, because fee-sharing would likely attract new capital and increase PTP’s value-proposition. If the hack gets viewed generally as a one-off that’s in the past, then this would make the most sense.

But making everyone whole is also a valid counterpoint to for us to consider.

I agree with this to a degree however I think its important to consider that it will also be easier to attract new capital if victims of the hack are made whole. As long as there is a plan in place to do so I am not for feeding that fund with fee splitting, but if there is an issue down the line and not all funds are recouped its important imo to find a way to compensate those for their loss.

Shrugging our shoulders and saying “thats crypto” is not going to make new capital feel comfortable. Being able to say yes we got hacked but everyone got there money back will give those newcomers that warm and fuzzy feeling that this is relatively a safe investment.

Thanks for the proposal! I agree that deploying fee sharing would enhance the competitiveness of Platypus!
As the discussion is gaining momentum, and we should provide the community with comprehensive options to evaluate and choose from.
I am suggesting to do 50% to LP and 50% to vePTP, @zerohedge could you gather all the suggestions from the thread reply and add them to your post so the community can find the suggestions easily.



We as most of the community want to fee sharing, i think

However, we don’t know

  1. what was the accumulated amounts in the past with their TVL’s

  2. which percentage did happen in “fee/TVL” ? to illustrate; %0.002 of TVL for week

If we see, a chart, accumulated amounts with TVL’s, i consider we are going to talk about “fee sharing” more sharply


Well, there are a lot of derivations of this feature suggested in this thread. There are people that want to divide the fee sharing, some that do not want to do it, others that want to implement it but with or without USP. Maybe it is better to just approve a PIP more generic and then if people want approve the derivations?

Why not all to vePTP?

1 Like

I also believe in the solution to distribute fully to vePTP… as the current commissions collected are low and should correspond between 10 / 20% APY for PTP holders (considering the current PTP price of $0.056)… this could lead to higher interest in PTP by increasing its value and therefore also increasing the APY of the main pool… the distribution of commissions to the LP would only bring a low % on top of the current APY bringing no benefit

Furthermore, it must be considered that the % of APY for the holders is considered with respect to the PTP price and therefore even a possible increase in the PTP token would still guarantee a good incentive to continue to stake / lock the PTP token

1 Like

Seems like a good point to 100% distribute to vePTP holders.

But we do need to see some data, besides the % haircut.

Where can we get Platypus trading volume figures?

geckoterminal and dexscreener don’t show it, I’m assuming bc it’s more complicated to integrate than a uni fork. FWIW, Curve volume doesn’t show on dexscreener (but it is on geckoterminal) either.

Hi, this proposal has passed the temperature check and consensus check already :wink: