This proposal mandates a structural shift to align Maple Finance with $Syrup value accrual. It transitions the protocol to a **90% fully automated, programmatic $SYRUP buyback mechanism** and institutes an immediate **governance freeze** on all core-team-initiated proposals until outstanding community proposals are given a fair vote.
Under MIP-020, management utilized discretion to entirely halt $SYRUP buybacks Year-to-Date (YTD), redirecting those funds to the Maple balance sheet. To eliminate this counterparty risk and restore trust, such human discretion must be removed from tokenomics.
Top-tier protocols like Hyperliquid successfully route 97%+ of platform fees directly into token buybacks via unalterable code, proving that a lean protocol does not require massive manual treasury cushions. Furthermore, while community-led proposals have languished on this forum for months, core-team proposals are routinely rushed to a vote in days. This asymmetry must end.
* **90% Programmatic Buyback:** 90% of all protocol-generated revenue and fees must be routed directly to an automated, on-chain smart contract to buy back $SYRUP via a continuous TWAP mechanism. Management retains 10% for essential infrastructure overhead.
* **Governance Parity Lock:** The core team is strictly prohibited from advancing any team-led proposals, upgrades, or initiatives to a Snapshot vote until all community-initiated proposals currently open on the forum for more than 14 days are advanced to an official Snapshot ballot.
Furthermore, a severe double standard exists regarding governance velocity. While community-led proposals languish on the forum for months, MIP-020 was rushed from inception to final passage in just 4 days, passing with zero community debate and 82 million votes concentrated across only 10 addresses. This extreme centralization of governance power to push management’s agenda while silencing retail initiatives must end.
Upon passage of this vote, the core team has 14 days to deploy the automated revenue-routing smart contract. The Governance Parity Lock takes effect immediately.
If all tokens and projects could easily do what Hyperliquid is doing, then the whole crypto market would be Hyperliquid and nobody would be losing money.
If 90% of revenue goes to buybacks, then who is going to pay the operating costs? What happens next? The protocol would have to sell SYRUP every month to pay developers, team members, and all the other expenses.
I largely agree with Magpie. We shouldn’t expect Maple to immediately replicate what Hyperliquid is doing—Hyperliquid is a mature, highly successful ecosystem, whereas Maple is still an ambitious up-and-comer. Demanding aggressive buybacks or distributions now would be akin to expecting an early-stage growth company to mirror the capital-return policies of established blue-chip stocks.
At this phase, early revenue is far more valuable when directed toward high-impact investments that build and strengthen the protocol. Ideally, 100% of the value captured should be reinvested into ecosystem growth rather than returned to token holders for the time being.
That said, greater transparency from the team would be very welcome. One practical step could be releasing quarterly statements outlining fees accumulated and how they are proposed to be allocated across expenses and initiatives (with room for buybacks where the team sees strong justification).
A more structured process—where the team presents an allocation plan for community review and approval—would meaningfully improve transparency and alignment. However, we must be careful not to create excessive burden. A key advantage of early-stage, non-public protocols is lighter reporting requirements compared to public companies; imposing heavy disclosure obligations too soon could hinder agility. While I believe some degree of financial transparency will be important for long-term success and trust, I’d value the team’s perspective on whether this should be implemented now or phased in at a more mature stage.
Regarding the 14-day governance parity lock, I support it. Blockchain protocols are designed for durability and resistance to hasty changes. A two-week window provides participants with sufficient time to respond to prior commitments or unexpected events. I’m interested in the team’s view: Is Maple still at a stage where rapid iteration remains critical, or has prioritizing resilience and stability become the higher priority?