Hey @Shishir, thanks for bringing this proposal up…
One thing to note is whether adding a rev. share utility into CLOUD brings up the “security” question in to play. One aspect that you missed to outline are the disadvantages of carrying “rev. share” into CLOUD:
Disadvantages:
1. CLOUD litigated as security:
With regards to a change like this, it needs to be carefully laid out with legal aid in order to ensure that CLOUD does not become a target in terms of it being a security (expectation of future profits).
However, I do believe there is precedence laid out by UNI ( ) in their Recent charge against the SEC despite their proposed fee switch, so over time this might not be an issue (not legal advice)
Uni Fee Switch Governance Proposal:
Additional Information:
2. Rev. Share lack of success in Projects:
I do know that a few other projects have been rev. sharing their protocol fees towards govt. Tokens (GMX, Molten, many of the perp dexs on ETH). One limiting factor is how big of a revenue share that CLOUD could retain.
Seeing that the product is the infinity pool, the one large elephant in the room is whether the fees accrued within the $INF pool would be sufficient for a mechanism like this to be worth developing for CLOUD.
Though the idea is a welcoming addition to the utility basket for CLOUD (ASR, LVT, Profiles Governance), I would agree to vote FOR the development of a Revenue sharing Model into CLOUD.
Tho the important factor is whether the rev. fee share would be worth to be utilised as a burning mechanism or distributed directly to CLOUD stakers.