ICAP allocation in proportion to fees generated by fund
A
Agape
IHF isn't a great example cause it's a closed fund.
Sure, new C20 and IHF users is good, but it would be even better if those new users purchased open-ended funds instead. This could be incentivized using the staking multipliers.
I wouldn't like the multiplier difference to be very great due to this, but something like an additional 0.05x or 0.1x could work for C10, IML, IBA, IGP and EMS. Out of these the highest fees funds (IML and IBA?) could have the extra 0.1x and others an extra 0.05x. Worth noting that this is the same result as lowering the multiplier of IHF and C20, but for marketing reasons and user perception it would be more useful to raise multipliers instead of lowering them imo.
Victoria van Heerden
Thanks for adding this, Vishal! Right now, the fund type you stake influences your fund multiplier, and ultimately your ICAP allocation. Looking forward to more community engagement on this 🙌
Berend
Victoria van Heerden: I would argue there is an unfair double incentive to smaller funds such as IML. They generate less revenue per $UM and on top of that receive a multiplier. In other words, IHF if heavily ICAP taxed in this sense. For that reason, I think the proposed amendment is the right thing to do