MIP-018 proposes to allocate 25% of protocol fee revenue from Q3 2025 to buyback $SYRUP tokens and distribute these as rewards to stakers of $SYRUP. This proposal builds on the success of Q1 and Q2 buybacks, advancing a mechanism that’s fast becoming a cornerstone of value distribution and staker alignment in the Maple ecosystem.
With protocol revenue scaling significantly and AUM surpassing $3 billion, MIP-018 reflects Maple’s growing financial strength and our commitment to rewarding long-term token holders who demonstrate conviction in the ecosystem. The increased allocation — up from 20% in Q2 — represents a calibrated evolution of the program, designed to further deepen staking participation, enhance governance engagement, and strengthen community alignment.
Detailed Proposal
MIP-013 and MIP-016 resulted in six months of buybacks throughout the first half of 2025. A total of ~830k USDC of revenue was used to purchase ~3.5M $SYRUP tokens at an average price of ~24 cents. 100% of these tokens were subsequently streamed to stakers.
This proposal increases this allocation to 25% of protocol fee revenue to purchase $SYRUP on the open market in the same manner throughout Q3 2025. The purchased $SYRUP tokens will again be streamed via smart contract to holders of staked $SYRUP (stSYRUP).
Maple is now generating approximately ~$15.5M in ARR from fees on the loan book and other assets under management. Total AUM has now exceeded $3 billion, underscoring the platform’s accelerating growth and deepening capital footprint.
Rationale
The advantages of a buyback mechanism remain the same as the proposals for Q1 and Q2:
Reward Long-Term Stakers: By continuing to distribute repurchased tokens to $SYRUP stakers, the DAO continues to reward those committed to the long-term health and growth of the Maple ecosystem.
Increase Staking Incentive: The additional staking rewards will continue to fund the staking ratio and overall participation in the governance and decentralization of Maple.
Sustain Proven Utility: The buyback program has become a key pillar of stSYRUP’s utility and is widely recognized by the community as a tangible source of on-chain yield. Expanding it reinforces Maple’s commitment to sustainable, token-driven alignment.
Implementation
Should MIP-018 pass, buybacks will be implemented in the following manner:
Revenue Allocation: 25% of the protocol revenue over Q3 2025 will be allocated for token buybacks.
Monthly Purchases: The buyback will be performed following the end of each calendar month based on the revenue earned during the month.
Distribution to $SYRUP Stakers: All tokens bought back through this mechanism will be distributed proportionally to $SYRUP stakers, based on their staking amount at the time of each distribution.
Voting
MIP-018 can be voted upon by stSYRUP holders only, with the vote scheduled to go live on the 25th of July 2025.
By continuing to implement this buyback mechanism, Maple Finance aims to leverage its growing protocol revenue to directly benefit those most active in its governance, fostering a more robust and engaged community.
The proposal strikes a solid balance between rewarding long-term stakers and reinforcing token utility, while still preserving the majority of revenue for protocol growth.
Can we burn a small % of the buybacks? I would do 80/20 for example. 80% of the bought back tokens would go to stakers and 20% would get burnt just start reducing the supply a bit and relieve a bit of the sell pressure. What do you guys think?
Burning part of the buybacks is a gimmick that undermines the entire point of staking. It slashes real, compounding yield in exchange for a hollow gesture that does nothing to move supply or price. Maple’s buyback model works because it channels value directly to the people actually backing the protocol.
I disagree. The current buybacks are great but they don’t relieve any sell pressure. If you spread all buybacks back to stakers then over time everything gets sold sooner or later. By removing a small part of the supply, you make sure that some sell pressure never returns. At the current rate we would burn about $750k worth of tokens per year and over time that would compound very much while still giving stakers the vast majority of buybacks…
This compounded over time would make sure of a constant price increase because of supply decrease. If there are just buybacks, that won’t happen as it is just a cycle of buying and selling
I appreciate the discussion and understand the concern around long-term sell pressure. However, I agree with ZooTV’s position — the current buyback model is strategically sound and aligned with Maple’s broader goals.
Redirecting a portion of buybacks toward token burns may appear to support price appreciation through reduced supply, but in practice, this undermines the core strength of the protocol: compounding yield distribution to stakers.
Maple’s buyback mechanism is unique in that it channels real economic value back to stakeholders who provide long-term alignment and security to the system. Burning tokens may create short-term optics around scarcity, but it forfeits yield that could be redistributed — weakening the very incentive structure that drives sustained participation and resilience.
In short, yield-based reinforcement is a stronger long-term growth lever than supply reduction. The most effective way to support price stability is through consistent revenue, reinvestment, and increasing protocol usage — not token destruction.
This is a misaligned take, If we want to reduce sell pressure, we build stronger incentives to hold, not weaker ones. Burns don’t align stakeholders, yield does.
Your burns will reduce yield, which makes staking less attractive, and that’s what actually increases sell pressure. If sell pressure is the concern, the solution isn’t to destroy rewards, it’s to give holders a reason to stake. Higher yields drive retention. Burns do the opposite.
Higher yields? The apy is 2.9% and it is abysmal to say the least. If it is 2.9 or 2.7 from buybacks is very much irrelevant if you ask me. Fact is that people sell their yield sooner or later and burns can never be sold. I do agree though that we need better tokenomics for price appreciation. What is your suggestion for that?
I’d argue that it’s not really about the 2.9% APY in isolation — it’s about what that yield represents and how it aligns incentives. The goal isn’t just to hand out high returns short term, it’s to incentivize long-term staking behavior and deeper protocol alignment. If Maple’s thesis is correct — and I’ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise — then consistent protocol-level buy pressure (via sustainable fee redirection) leads to price appreciation over time. And that benefits stakers more predictably than volatility from token burns.
SYRUP isn’t just a governance tool anymore — it’s evolving into a long-term capital coordination asset. Burning may feel good short-term, but it weakens the structural feedback loop that keeps capital sticky and engaged. That’s the real risk: we hurt long-term utility for the sake of short-term scarcity optics. MIP 018 is a step in the right direction.
Why not 30%? How do we increase yield for stakers? Its gone down to 2.9% even if the share of stakers have reduced to 39% of supply only. There needs to be a compelling reason to stake and 2.9% is even lower then what binance provides.
I would never ever lock up peoples money and that shouldn’t even be an option.
Do you think that yield is good at 2.9% and that it will bring in new buyers of the token? I don’t think it will so that is why I would try it with adding burns into the mix.
How is it artificial scarcity if you actually create scarcity?
Who said anything about forcing people?
Incentivized lockups are voluntary and standard in DeFi, Maple already does it with USDC for more Drips. It rewards long-term commitment without forcing anyone.
Yes, 2.9% APY is low. But burning just makes it worse. If yield is the issue, increase buybacks or grow revenue, don’t cut rewards and call it a solution.
Burning doesn’t create real scarcity. It’s supply manipulation without added demand.
If 2.9% isn’t enough to attract buyers, how does reducing it further help, which is what you are suggesting. Let’s reduce yield further, but complain that yield is “abysmal”.
Well if it is incentivized and not forced that does sound like it could be a good upgrade to the tokenomics.
If you ask me staking is BS so the yield is irrelevant. I don’t care about the yield and wasn’t complaining about it, was just pointing out that at the current apy it is abysmal at best and irrelevant at worst.
We all want price to go up, right? And since we have revenue we use that to reduce supply and reduce sell pressure from sellers. You asked to attract buyers, but if you burn the tokens, you don’t need to attract buyers as the sellers run out of tokens sooner or later because of the burns and the company is the buyer that you need…
With this yield it isn’t enticing for buyers, but you could exhaust the sellers through burns. Because at the end of the day, if the price does 10x from here, there is no chance that you make enough revenue to get apy anywhere close to that.
I want price to go up on fundamentals, not gimmicks. That means increasing revenue, growing TVL, and expanding real utility. Burns don’t drive any of that.
Sure, the current staking yield isn’t exciting, but it’s still better than nothing. And if the token price rises, that yield compounds in value.
ZooTV is right — burns alone don’t build real value. Without revenue, TVL growth, and expanding utility, supply reduction is just optics. It doesn’t make SYRUP inherently more desirable to hold.
That said, we do need to rethink incentives — just not prematurely. As Maple scales, we can evolve staking mechanics and reward design to better align with protocol growth.
Price should rise on fundamentals, not gimmicks. If we build the flywheel — inflows, usage, alignment — yield becomes more than just APY. It becomes part of a thriving, self-sustaining ecosystem.
Respect to everyone contributing here. This is how we get stronger.
Everything is a gimmick, even staking. So why not try out different ones and see if it gets better or worse? We can always change it back later if it doesn’t work…
Btw, I also disagree with doing buybacks all in one day(is that what is meant in the proposal?), those should be spread out imo
MIP-018 does not propose doing buybacks all in one day. As outlined, the 60K USDC will be deployed gradually over the course of Q3. It is not a one-time event. The goal is to introduce measured pressure into the order book while observing market impact and treasury flow.
While it’s fair to critique staking and other DeFi mechanisms, calling everything a “gimmick” misses the intent behind protocol design. MIP-018 isn’t just a random switch — it’s a continuation of Maple’s evolving capital return policy, designed to restore tokenholder alignment and demonstrate capital efficiency.
You’re right that iteration is healthy — but stability and trust in governance processes is just as important. I support MIP-018 because it balances action with responsibility. It’s not perfect, but it moves us forward with accountability.
Open to further feedback, just wanted to ground the discussion in what the proposal actually states.
