MIP-01 MagicSwap Launch Fees

Summary With the approval of TIP-15 one of the outstanding aspects of the MagicSwap AMM launch was the “fee” component which was initially proposed as 4%; 3% for LPs, and the remaining 1% divided evenly between a community fund for gamified mechanisms and a community fund for ecosystem growth respectively.

In response to community feedback we would like to revisit the fee structure with something that the community can align on. This TIP proposes various options for fee structures for community members to vote on.

For additional context and rationale, please see the discussion at: https://commonwealth.im/treasure-dao/discussion/6334-mip01-magicswap-launch-fees

Proposal It is proposed to launch MagicSwap as a decentralised, open source and community run product with one of the following fee structures below, which applies to all liquidity pairs on the MagicSwap AMM.

All fee structure options divide the total AMM fee as follows:

• 75% to liquidity providers proportional to the liquidity they provide to that pool

• 12.5% to a community fund held in a multisig wallet managed by an AMM council for the benefit of members to be distributed via gamified mechanics that incentivise participation and adding value back to the Treasure ecosystem.

• 12.5% to a separate community fund held in a multisig wallet managed by an AMM council for the benefit of members to support the growth of the Treasure ecosystem. This may include conversion of LP pairs received as fees as required.

The following options are proposed:

A) 3% total fee

• 2.25% to LPs

• 0.375% to Community Gamification Fund

• 0.375% to Community Ecosystem Fund

B) 2% total fee

• 1.5% to LPs

• 0.25% to Community Gamification Fund

• 0.25% to Community Ecosystem Fund

C) 1.5% total fee

• 1.125% to LPs

• 0.1875% to Community Gamification Fund

• 0.1875% to Community Ecosystem Fund

D) 1% total fee

• 0.75% to LPs

• 0.125% to Community Gamification Fund

• 0.125% to Community Ecosystem Fund

Further adjustments may be made via another MIP or via AMM council members. In accordance with what is best for the community, we have sought to structure this proposal in a way that strikes the right balance among key stakeholders, primarily LPs and players.