This proposal responds to RRC 39, where the RARI DAO requested the RARI Foundation to manage secondary fee collection manually while the DAO implements multichain on-chain governance. This document outlines the mechanics of the proposed fee collection system and its implementation steps.
Rationale
The DAO requires an interim solution to ensure secondary fees are collected efficiently across multiple ecosystems. Since fees are already established on Ethereum, implementing a structured collection mechanism will provide stability and transparency while the DAO finalizes a long-term governance framework.
Motivation
By implementing this solution, the DAO ensures that fees are properly aggregated and transferred to the treasury, maintaining financial accountability. This also establishes a clear and operational process across multiple chains, mitigating inefficiencies and delays.
Specifications
The RARI Foundation will manage a multisig wallet in the following ecosystems to collect secondary fees:
ETHEREUM
POLYGON
MANTLE
ARBITRUM
CHILIZ
LIGHTLINK
ZKSYNC
ASTARZKEVM
BASE
RARI
CELO
FIEF
XAI
KROMA
ZKLINK
OASYS
QUAI
SAAKURU
OASIS
PALM
MATCH
FIVIRE
SEI
CAMP
LISK
MOONBEAM
ETHERLINK
ZKCANDY
ALEPHZERO
BERACHAIN
ABSTRACT
SHAPE
TELOS
HEDERAEVM
If additional chains are added to the Rarible Protocol in the future, RARI Foundation shall collect fees on behalf of the DAO here as well.
Fee Collection Process
For secondary sales paid in ETH: Fees will be bridged to the DAO treasury in ETH.
For secondary sales paid in other tokens: Fees will be swapped for USDC before bridging to the DAO treasury.
Bridging to the DAO’s treasury will be conducted at a minimum of monthly, at a maximum of quarterly, depending on the volume of the fees collected.
Foundation will record levels of collected fees as part of quarterly transparency reports.
A diagram outlining the collection mechanism is attached to this proposal.
DAO Approval: The DAO votes to approve the proposed fee collection mechanism.
Multisig Deployment: The RARI Foundation deploys multisig wallets on each of the listed chains.
Contract Adoption: Rarible adopts the fee collection contracts.
Timeline
Week 1-2: DAO discussion and approval process.
Week 3-4: Deployment of multisig wallets across ecosystems.
Week 5+: Integration with Rarible and initiation of fee collection.
Costs
Administrative oversight required for set up and execution as well as operational costs for ongoing maintenance, will be absorbed by the Foundation’s operational budget
Transaction costs associated with bridging and swaps
This system is ready for immediate implementation pending DAO approval.
This mechanism is very favourable and will allow the Treasury to fill with non-Rari assets, expanding the possibilities for the DAO to design new initiatives.
We guess initially fees will be collected in the Ethereum-layer based DAO Treasury. After the transition to a Rari Chain-based Treasury, how more complicated will it become to transfer multichain fees?
Thanks @Jose_StableLab - in the current governance upgrade design, the main treasury stays on mainnet and the RARI chain treasury will be a secondary treasury, both will be governed by the same DAO on RARI chain.
I’m in favor of this proposal.
It puts the DAO in a good position for the potential market madness coming in the next months.
One thing that we could discuss later is how often fees will be collected from different chains?
Assuming that activity on some of these chains might be very low, collecting fees and bridging them might end up costing more than the fees themselves.
Thanks for the proposal. Could you share, why this should be an interim solution and for how long the manual fee collection is intended? My understanding was, that the multichain-governance is already in its finalization.
Besides, good initiative to expand fees on multiple chains.
Great comment @Jaf - while the collection into the foundation-managed multisigs is in real time, swapping and bridging will be manual. We can set this up on a monthly basis so that the DAO receives the collected funds on a regular basis while limiting the administrative burden and fees.
The associated costs are swapping and bridging fees and the cost of manning the operation, which is absorbed in the Foundation operations—namely, the overhead of the external finance team and Foundation oversight. No direct cost to the DAO as part of this proposal.
Thanks @bitblondy - we’re working with the partners for MultiGov adoption, but to our understanding, the contract isn’t ready yet. We’re staying on top of this!
The proposal looks good, and it’s great to see this moving forward following the execution of RRC-39.
Is there a timeline for when these negotiations will be finalized and presented to the DAO?
On this point, would it be possible to track the monthly returns over the first three months? Given the operational complexity of swapping and bridging across 30+ chains, a quarterly approach might be more efficient, provided the fees remain reasonable, at least for the time being.
I am in SUPPORT of this proposal. I believe that it is a net benefit for the DAO to implement new revenue streams.
Regarding swapping and bridging assets collected from other chains, I think the most operationally efficient way would be to swap the fees monthly (to avoid long-term volatility), with bridging only occurring quarterly.
@JanaBe After checking in the staking proposal, Tally shared the contracts are ready, and it’s on the DAO to decide on the source of incentives. So apparently we didn’t stay on top of this, which is really frustrating.
Instead of working out a not so practical interim solution, it would make more sense to get the actual governance upgrade rolling and then implement multichain fee collection.
Especially, since with the third cohort of the delegate program coming to an end and the governance upgrade not ready, we’re having the voting power issue again, making it very difficult to pass any proposal.
Thanks for the comment @bitblondy - the staking and the multichain governor upgrade are two separate actions, so this interim solution for fee collection the DAO requested the Foundation to design, is in place while the MultiGov contract is worked on. We can discuss that more in the upcoming community call.
Thanks @JanaBe for the response and explanation in the community call. I’m still not sure if I understand the difference between both actions. I would assume, the MultiGov contract should be completed first, and staking be enabled later?
As far as I understood in the call, the MultiGov setup has already quite progressed, with RARI DAO deployed on RARI chain as well, and the “two-DAO” setup would be ready in the next weeks.
So it’s not that clear to me, why the interim solution is needed. The fee collection mechanism is a great initiative, though.
