Optimize YieldNest Protocol Revenue and Treasury Growth V1

Proposals
1

:bar_chart: YieldNest DAO Proposal: Revenue Expansion & Incentive Optimization

Overview

This proposal outlines a set of targeted upgrades to YieldNest’s incentive systems and capital strategy, designed to increase Distributable Protocol Revenue by $300K+ annually while strengthening token demand, growing Protocol & Treasury TVL and the YieldNest user base.

The proposal focuses on four key areas:

  • STAK revenue optimization

  • YND emissions strategy

  • veYND compounding incentives

  • Protocol-owned liquidity (PoL)

:wrench: Proposal 1: Optimize STAK Revenue via Boosted Rewards + Admin Fee

Summary

  • Re-enable boosted CRV / StakeDAO rewards for STAK

  • Introduce a 20%–40% admin fee (up to 50% if APY ≥ 25%)

Rationale

Curve bribes consistently generate 20–40%+ returns per epoch, allowing YieldNest to convert emissions into higher-yield incentives.

Users prioritize net APY, not fee structure. If STAK maintains ≥25% APY after fees, it remains highly competitive and attractive.

Impact

  • Increased STAK TVL

  • Growth of ynRWAx and ynUSDx

  • Establishes STAK as a major revenue driver

:fire: Proposal 2: Increase YND Emissions to Strengthen veYND APR

Summary

  • Increase YND emissions

  • Target veYND APR ≥ 30% sustained

Rationale

Higher veYND yield drives:

  • Increased YND buying and locking

  • Reduced circulating supply

  • Stronger token value

This creates a positive feedback loop between emissions, incentives, and TVL growth.

Impact

  • Higher veYND participation

  • Increased demand for YND

  • More effective bribe-driven yield

:repeat_button: Proposal 3: Incentivize veYND Compounding

Summary

  • Add a 20%–30% bonus for users who compound veYND rewards back into YND staking

Rationale

Encourages users to:

  • Reinvest instead of exiting

  • Extend lock duration

  • Strengthen long-term alignment

Impact

  • Reduced sell pressure

  • Increased veYND growth

  • Improved token stability

:droplet: Proposal 4: Build Protocol-Owned YND Liquidity (PoL)

Summary

Allocate treasury capital to establish Protocol-Owned Liquidity (PoL) using YND paired with core YieldNest assets such as ynETHx and ynRWAx.

Rationale

Building deep YND liquidity creates a self-reinforcing revenue engine:

  • Generates swap fees from trading activity

  • Captures automated arbitrage revenue across YieldNest markets

  • Strengthens price stability and liquidity depth

Strategic Benefits

  • Offset YND emissions through swap fee revenue generation and asset appreciation

  • Increase YieldNest revenue and Treasury TVL

  • Stronger YND value and increased YND trade volume

:chart_increasing: Combined Impact

If implemented together, these upgrades are expected to:

  • Increase protocol revenue by $300K+ annually

  • Strengthen YND token demand, price support, and value.

  • Grow YieldNest ecosystem TVL

  • Increase YieldNest Protocol Revenue, Treasury TVL, and Protocol TVL.

:balance_scale: Key Considerations

  • STAK APY must remain competitive after fees

  • Emissions increases should be balanced to avoid excess dilution

  • Liquidity deployment should prioritize long-term sustainability

:ballot_box_with_ballot: Call to Action

This proposal represents a high-impact, capital-efficient path to scaling YieldNest’s revenue and ecosystem strength.

By aligning incentives across:

  • Yield generation

  • Token emissions

  • Liquidity ownership

…YieldNest can transition toward a more profitable model with a higher growth rate.

2

Hey @CurveBondsDAO :waving_hand:

Great proposals — solid structure and the right areas to focus on. I’ll share some thoughts on each part below, hoping to spark some good discussion in the community. :folded_hands:

Proposal 1: Optimize STAK Revenue via Boosted Rewards + Admin Fee
I’m not convinced.

A 20–40% fee will be visible to everyone. New users will ask why it’s so high, and that’s a hard question to answer competitively.

Also — STAK already drives revenue indirectly. ynRWAx and ynUSDx sit under the hood. When STAK grows, those products grow too. Adding a fee on top feels like taxing our own ecosystem.

And bribes are not a stable foundation. Before building a fee structure around them, I’d want to understand from the team — what’s the long-term outlook for bribe yields?

My bigger question: how is STAK positioned vs ynRWAx?

Right now they feel like competing products. Why would I put money into STAK when ynRWAx exists?

I think STAK deserves its own identity — a “pension fund” model. Slow, steady accumulation. Long-term alignment. Less competition, more complementarity.

Let’s talk about Looping instead.

The team is already rolling out looping strategies for ynRWAx — and we can see the TVL impact. If we bring the same mechanic to STAK, it could drive serious growth there too, and indirectly accelerate the other products sitting underneath it.

This feels like a much stronger lever than an admin fee.

One more thing — stak.fyi needs more love.

The site exists but the community isn’t talking about it enough. Two concrete ideas:

  • Push it more actively on Twitter

  • Add a savings calculator — “if I deposit X every month, what do I get in 3 years?” Simple, visual, powerful for onboarding new users.

3

I support this — but want to add some context.

Right now YND has no buyback mechanism. That means holding YND has limited upside beyond APR. Until that changes, keeping veYND APR high is one of the few real incentives we have to retain holders and attract new ones.

So yes — sustaining 30% APR through emissions makes sense as a temporary! measure.

But let’s be honest: emissions are a bridge, not a destination.

Instead of asking for a roadmap with dates — which I understand is hard to commit to — I’d suggest something more practical: a TVL-based buyback schedule.

The idea is simple: as protocol TVL grows, an increasing % of revenue goes toward YND buybacks.

Something like:

TVL % of revenue → YND buyback
$25M 5%
$50M 10%
$100M 20%
$200M+ 40%+

The exact numbers should come from the team based on protocol economics. But the mechanism is what matters — clear milestones, transparent commitment, no guesswork.

Keep emissions high until buybacks kick in. Then we have a real engine.

Would love to hear the team’s thoughts on this.

4

I understand the goal here — reduce sell pressure and keep holders engaged long-term. That makes sense.

But I’m not sure we need a separate mechanism for this.

If Proposal 2 is implemented and veYND APR stays at 30%+, that already creates a strong incentive to stay and reinvest. Adding a 20-30% compounding bonus on top raises a simple question: where does that money come from? Most likely more emissions — which undermines the stability we’re trying to build.

It also adds technical complexity that I’m not sure is justified given the overlap with Proposal 2.

My take: let’s not over-engineer this. If Proposal 2 does its job, Proposal 3 becomes unnecessary. Let’s revisit if the data shows otherwise.

I like the direction here — but I think we can make this more concrete and focused.

One pair only: YND/ETH on Uniswap.

Adding multiple pairs sounds diversified but it’s actually a weakness. Liquidity gets spread thin across pools, each pool becomes shallow, and arbitrageurs will exploit that immediately. One deep pool is far stronger than three weak ones.

YND/ETH also has a nice property: as ETH grows, the LP position grows with it — giving YND indirect exposure to ETH upside.

How to structure it:

  • Dedicate a single on-chain address for all protocol LP management — transparent and trackable by anyone

  • Hand operational control to the team — they should be able to rebalance without a governance vote every time

  • Add a Gauge field to direct a portion of YND emissions toward maintaining this liquidity — making it self-sustaining over time

This keeps things simple, focused, and hard to attack.

I’d suggest we table the idea of launching new pairs for now and revisit once the YND/ETH pool has real depth.

Hey @DeoBrands — would love to hear your thoughts on this discussion.

I’m sharing my perspective as a community member, but I’m aware I don’t have full visibility into the team’s roadmap and vision. I might be missing important context.

No pressure — but your input here would really help the community make better decisions. :folded_hands: