Licensing fee best usecase for ersdl

The proposed option thus far are:

  • Burn
  • Redistribute
  • Mixes of % of the above 2

In my opinion those options are far from ideal for the following reason:
Redistribution of the token will cause a lot of selling pressure and choosing this option will in fact be the end of the project, never to recover again.
Burn is a better option, but this only slightly incentivizes holding the token (thus its already multitudes better than redistribution, but still not ideal.)

I propose another option that will incentivize holding as much ersdl as possible and will thus drive up the demand for the token, finally bringing the bullish sentiment back. Redistribute the licencing fee to all holders in the form of a stablecoin.

If this decision passes, people will all want to get in to get a portion of the licencing fee and will buy as much ersdl as they can get their hands on, I and other early ersdl supporters think this is the best decision to make for the project.


I like this options as like you say it doesn’t affect the token but incentivises new token holders

Its an interesting option, question is how to convert the eRSDL bought for a license fee to a stable coin ? There is another thread here Lets put it out there.....What would you like to see done with the licencing fees - #20 by CryptoKriegerU where this is being discussed. Do you want to pop this in there to help keep all the options together?

1 Like

I also like this sentiment for a number of reasons. First let me clarify how I think the flow should go :

  • When banks want to use the service, simply have them pay in fiat or a stable coin, not in eRSDL.
  • Next, whatever is necessary for tax purposes, unfed can hold in an interest bearing account until the end of the tax year (can get 20% on Terra, just as an example) so that way the money is working for unfed still.
  • The rest gets distributed to holders proportionate to how much they own, with a multiplier for LP. I personally recommend 1.2x for LP (but of course it’s up for discussion). This creates something that ersdl desperately needs, a sustainable incentive for LPs that’s not dependent on platform specific (i.e. bancor) inflationary defi rewards.

Reasons that I think this is the way to go

  • It’s a lot more direct with no extraneous steps in the middle. Especially for a company looking to be compliant, this model is a lot more palatable to the SEC and regulators.

  • As defi 1.0 and the summer of 2020 have shown, you want as MUCH separation from the native token and the rewards. Regardless of how much a buyback and burn sounds appealing from a ponzi pumpamentals perspective, those rewards will have to be cashed in. Without incentives for LP, and a decreasing supply of ersdl in the pools from the buyback and burn mechanism, anyone that wants to actually enjoy their rewards will have to crash the price of ersdl.

  • With the burn mechanism, you then have to ask yourself, who wants to provide liquidity for an asset they have a bullish outlook on, that they know they will lose from buy back and burns. LP’s get the short end of the stick here.

  • Simply knowing that OWNING ersdl gives you a constant cashflow creates all the buyside pressure you need, with no sell side pressure from rewards dumping.

  • This is also a much more digestible pitch for people in trads looking to invest into crypto/defi, as it frames ersdl as a dividend coin, something they can easily understand.

  • This also presents a “coop” narrative for banks that use the unfed service and also want to partake in the ecosystem as well, creating more buyside pressure on the token. If anyone has ever shopped at REI, you know that being a member, you also get kickbacks from the revenue REI generates, since you too are an owner, which creates a nice feedback loop. This compounds on the key of inclusiveness, promoting the idea that anyone that partakes in unfed is also a part of the project.

-Banks pay in stables
-Tax portion of payments put into yield bearing accounts until end of year
-Rest distributed to holders proportionate to how much they own, with 1.2x multiplier for LP’s.

PS - I’d like a ban on howie using 1000 in any promotional materials or examples regardless of intent. We know how that went last time. T_T


Paying a profits distribution to eRSDL (or even publicly making that statement) would instantly qualify the token as a security. The token is a digital marker… an important distinction especially with the SEC news coming out this week on stablecoins. Putting a rock on the fee to earn and pay taxes at last minute sounds ideal. It’s been mentioned a few times and we’ll have to work it in the program.

Good feedback. (Promise no $40Bn through the pipes by EOY or 1000% APYs ever again. From now on we estimate nothing, lol)

Have a nice evening.

1 Like

I recommend burning the supply. I feel it is the simplest way to increase the value of the token proportionally to all token holders. I also think that once news spreads about a bank using the platform and, paying licensing fees that are being burned, the amount of fomo to follow could push us to a billion dollar market cap. In my years of experience investing in crypto I see simple pumpamentals being the best method for mass adoption. I literally road the entire Defi rise. Got rugged once a month, I invested in Lend before it rebranded to Aave.

That’s my two cents and community contribution, I’m invested in the team first and the product second, I’m sure you guys will figure it out.

On a side note I would also recommend sharing any marketing updates with the community as I’m sure I am not the only one wondering what’s being done in that department, this late into a bull cycle a few campaigns could go along way.


Well done on the oustside the box thinking; this sounds a great idea to me!

1 Like

Howard, we have no problem with realistic estimates. Where this project gets into trouble is unrealistic ones. 1000% APY, $1000/token, 40b volume EOY.

We all want realistic roadmaps, and have full faith in your team you’ve assembled. Just want to drive home that point, being able to see where you’re heading is helpful for community.


Please clarify for us not as acquainted with the regulations, but how is distributing USDC any different than distributing eRSDL?


eRSDL is a digital marker used to allow access to the software by licensees. Distributing digital markers is different than distributing money or securities.