Adjust SWPR & ENS liquidity discount multiplier contribution to Treasury NAV

Tldr, this proposal would lower SWPR liquidity discount multiplier to 10% and raise ENS’s to 50% for Treasury NAV calculations.


Last December, DXdao approved a new token model which ties the value of DXD to the value of DXdao’s treasury. Since then, 9,500 DXD has been acquired by DXdao through buyback purchases and member redemption balancers.

One of the issues identified in January’s DXD Monetary Policy Committee Meeting was the increase in treasury contributions from non-core assets. The Treasury NAV is calculated across all assets in DXdao’s treasury - with certain assets’ contribution discounted - but the buybacks and member balancer redemptions are only using stablecoins and ETH, so this naturally increases no-core assets’ contribution to NAV.

DXdao has 78m SWPR in its treasury and affiliated addresses. It currently has a liquidity discount multiplier of 25% because SWPR liquidity is low. A $250 purchase of SWPR token incurs 5% slippage.

ENS token, meanwhile, is using a 25% liquidity discount multiplier as it was originally awarded to DXdao to help govern ENS and was not intended to be a capital base.


This proposal authorizes the SWPR liquidity discount multiplier to be lowered to 10% and the ENS liquidity discount multiplier to be raised to 50% for all future Treasury NAV calculations.

Risks & other considerations

This will have a direct impact on the 70% of NAV price that DXdao supports through buybacks and member balancer redemptions. Even with the liquidity discount, the SWPR token is still susceptible to manipulation to inflate Treasury NAV given its low liquidity. Raising the ENS liquidity discount multiplier will make it more likely that some may need to be sold to balance the treasury.


Seems fine to me.





1 Like

Not massively opposed.

But if we’re valuing SWAPR at zero, does that not make it much more difficult to justify continued investment in building pit Swapr?

1 Like

I guess if Swapr was doing big volume, DXdao would make $$ from the protocol fee - so wouldn’t go as far as saying 0% token contribution to NAV means it’s not worth funding product development (just from talking in terms of pure calculation here).

I’m fine with SWPR 10% and ENS up to 50%

Is this any different than imagining that Swapr didn’t have a token? Would the DAO still fund Swapr without it? I would expect yes, but everyone can come to their own conclusion. And a conversation about the current and future value of Swapr (the protocol) is probably a decent thing to come out of these kinds of proposed changes.

Changing this now also doesn’t imply that the discount multiplier couldn’t be increased from zero in the future as circumstances change.