Sturdy fees? Let's find out!

Hi everyone,

Upon checking the code, it appears that Sturdy collects fees on the yield from the collateral assets provided here’s an example, for the Lido stEth vault:

FYI, the fee is 10% at the moment, as stated in the deployment docs.

The treasury appears to be here, as stated on the github:


DeBank says it’s currently worth $270k, half of it is staked into Sturdy.

It’s an EOA, not a multisig.

In line with regular governance practices, I’d like to see the following questions answered:

A) Is the treasury the property of the DAO?

If yes,
B) Can we move it to a multisig, or a manager contract?

If no:
C) Who gets the fees? The team or the DAO?

In the case the treasury is the DAO property, I think that a good practice would be to consolidate the assets into a few holdings (stables/eth/veTokens).



1 Like

Thanks for making this post!

No; at the moment, fees are directed to a wallet controlled by the company initially responsible for developing the Sturdy protocol.

Ok, so the only utility of the token is currently governance?

To grow, Sturdy needs its token to be valuable. Given that Sturdy raised money from investors, and that the team/company gets also a fair share of tokens, do we need to redirect those funds to the company? Almost half of the supply goes to insiders already.

Accruing value at the protocol level would help support the price and speculative outcomes of the token, which will in turn bring more liquidity in, starting a positive reinforcement loop. Currently, the protocol doesn’t accumulate value, fees act as a leak through the treasury.

As such, I propose the following:

  • Create a council of community members to act as treasury guardians.
  • Switch the treasury wallet to a gnosis safe multisig. If this address needs to do regular updates, we can use an hybrid safe like this one: GitHub - dialecticch/medici-go-demo
  • List the fees for each collateral type currently used.