The proposal aims to adjust USDp generated fee distribution.
Context:
As voted in PIP-51 l Launch USDp, the new Parallel USD Stablecoin, 70% of USDp generated fees are currently distributed to sUSDp. In order to increase our competitiveness on the market we propose to increase fee distribution share to sUSDp.
Rationale:
In line with the current growth strategy, which is to maximize the use of sUSDp as collateral for looping, we propose to drastically increase the allocation of fees generated by the protocol to sUSDp.
Below is the current USDp generated fees distribution:
sUSDp: 70.00%
sPRL Holders: 15.00%
DAO Treasury: 10.00%
Insurance Fund: 9.00%
Angle Labs: 1.00%
We propose to adjust fees distribution in this way:
sUSDp: 90.00%
DAO Treasury: 9.00%
Angle Labs: 1.00%
sPRL holders have received $80k in fee sharing over the last 6 months, entirely from Parallel V2 generated fees. As Parallel V2 continues to generate fees, and in order to support the growth of Parallel V3, we believe it is appropriate to reallocate the budget to sUSDp.
The insurance fund currently consists of approximately $800k and is still being fed by fees generated by Parallel V2. We believe it is appropriate to reallocate these fees to sUSDp.
Means:
Human Resources: Multisig signers will need to sign transactions to execute the proposal
Treasury Resources: No treasury resources needed.
Technical implementation:
On each chain where the protocol is deployed, keepers will adjust USDp fee distribution in accordance with the proposal.
I’ve been a long-term supporter and holder since the very early Parallel days — fully staked, fully aligned with the DAO’s vision.
But to be honest, the combination of PIP-54 (sunsetting paUSD) and PIP-55 (redirecting 100% of USDp fees to sUSDp) leaves many of us long-term stakers deeply concerned.
As it stands, sPRL holders no longer have any active fee stream from either V2 or V3. That effectively removes all current economic incentives for governance participants, which doesn’t seem sustainable for a DAO built on decentralization and alignment.
I understand the growth phase and the need to boost sUSDp competitiveness — but please be transparent:
Is this temporary until the USDp ecosystem stabilizes?
Or is there a planned future mechanism (PIP or buyback model) to reconnect sPRL holders to the protocol’s real yield and value creation?
The community deserves clarity on how long-term contributors fit into the V3 roadmap.
We’ve supported Parallel through all cycles — we just need to know that the vision still includes us.
paUSD is currently generating around $50 per month in fees, while PAR is generating around $70,000. PIP-54 is only about sunsetting paUSD, not PAR. Moreover PIP-55 is proposing to redirect 90% of fees generated by USDp reserves, and do not include paUSD & PAR generated fees. sPRL will continue to receive 15% of fees generated by PAR & paUSD.
Yes it is temporary to allow the V3 & USDp to get market share faster.
sPRL holders holders are currently receiving 15% of generated fees by the protocol. See last month distribution here. Moreover, the protocol distributed $80k to sPRL holders over the last 6 months.
I’m all for pushing Parallel V3 and USDp forward to drive growth, but sPRL holders deserve to keep their share of those fees—it’s only fair for the long-term supporters who’ve stuck with the protocol.
If we’re tweaking the distribution, let’s bump sPRL’s allocation above 15% to better reward staking and maintain ecosystem balance, rather than cutting it entirely. Voting to rework for a more equitable split.
Again, the proposal is only about USDp related generated fees. PAR & paUSD related generated fees will continue under the same fee distribution, with 15% allocated to sPRL holders. Stablecoins is currently the most competitive market in DeFi, keeping only 70% of generated fees to sUSDp will make us loose the war before starting it.
What USDp TVL level or growth milestone are you targeting before re-allocating part of the fees back to sPRL holders?
I understand the need to redirect all USDp fees toward sUSDp right now — the stablecoin war is fierce, and I fully support the idea of focusing on growth first.
As long as this adjustment is temporary and the goal remains to reconnect sPRL holders to USDp fees once the protocol reaches stronger TVL and stability.
Why not 1% fee sharing, or the roadmap ambition to share fees in the future? I understand the competitive aspect so I am kinda aligned with PIP-55. But I would like >1% or a roadmap idea about it.
No need for me to get generated fees from a 1-2 Mio USDp TVL. I think it is not worth spending reccources for the calculations (share for each sPRL Hodler). I want the generated fees from a 500 Mio TVL. From my point of view 95% of the generated fees can go into sUSDp and should remain there until we reach that level.
I would like to see an agressive grow of USDp and sUSDp. Let’s quickly qualify for Redstone (3 x 1 Mio USDp, sUSDp) to start the loop.
Just to note, to my understanding we are currently getting that much PAR from V2 because we apply 90% borrowing fee. We need a high USDp TVL to get similar rewards in USDp in the future.
