Curve DAO votes on 10% crvUSD fee allocation proposal
Curve DAO (CRYPTO:CRV) members are voting on a new proposal to allocate 10% of crvUSD loan fees toward crvUSD savings, aiming to strengthen the stablecoin’s ecosystem.
Curve founder Michael Egorov explained that this proposal, now in its confirmation phase, is designed to support crvUSD’s growth, which currently has a market value of $60 million.
The proposal has gained majority support, with the vote set to conclude on Friday.
According to Egorov, the initiative would lower borrowing costs for crvUSD, increase its supply, and potentially enhance revenue for governance members in the long term.
However, realising such benefits immediately might be challenging.
So far, eight voting addresses representing around 10 million tokens, or roughly 30% of Curve’s voting power, have participated.
Community responses have been mixed.
A supporter with the handle Crv.Mktcap raised concerns that the proposal may negatively affect Curve’s governance token (CRV) and locked token holders in the short term.
They noted that if the proposal is implemented, “andCRV investors will have to forgo some of their income to finance the savings rate.”
Yet, advocates argue that expanding the stablecoin supply would ultimately bring more revenue to andCRV investors over time.
Curve, a decentralised exchange focused on stablecoin swaps, currently holds $1.7 billion in total locked value, ranking as the 15th largest DeFi protocol according to DefiLlama.
At the time of reporting, the Curve DAO Token (CRV) price was $0.2268.
Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.
You may also like
Blockchain-based iGaming platform BoxBet completes funding round led by CMCC Global
Ethereum Price Set for Bullish Push: What’s Next?
Ethereum’s $4K Dream Fades as Ancient Whale Dumps Millions
MicroStrategy’s Debt-for-Bitcoin Strategy Faces Long-Term Viability Concerns