AQube - Continuous Buyback Mechanism (Temp Check)

1. Title

Continuous Buyback Mechanism (Temp Check)

2. Type of MIP

Constitutional

3. Self-introduction of the Member

AQube is a specialized firm in blockchain economic research, DeFi strategy, and tokenomics optimization. The firm applies a structured, research-based methodology to token restructuring, liquidity planning, and incentive system design. Experience includes:

• Supported the generation of $400M+ TVL managed across DeFi protocols

$6M+ fundraising supported for blockchain projects

• Strategic liquidity and tokenomics models across multiple DeFi platforms

• Produced a General Report on Minswap tokenomics, encompassing a structured review of tokenomic dynamics, liquidity and treasury management, and a framework of solutions aimed at revitalizing the MIN token’s economic design. The report serves as the foundation for the first of multiple DAO proposals on tokenomics restructuring.

4. Scope of Change

Authorize a continuous buyback mechanism that funds LP rewards with market-purchased MIN. Revenue source is ADA Staking rewards produced by the ADA held inside Minswap LPs. The DAO selects one of two surplus policies at vote time (Option A or Option B). The action is recurring, with monthly windows and public reconciliation.

LP distribution mechanics

Common mechanics
Source of funds: ADA staking rewards generated by the ADA held in AMM liquidity pools.
Settlement unit: MIN
Emissions Parameter (per window): governance-set LP emissions plan for the window
Buyback: staking-rewards ADA is swapped to MIN during the window (time-weighted execution acceptable) to produce purchased MIN
Distribution rule: distribute up to the Emissions Parameter, sourced only from purchased MIN
Reporting: disclose purchased MIN, distributed MIN, surplus treatment, and hashes for buyback/burn (and Labs transfers if Option B is active) in the monthly reconciliation

Option A – full burn of surplus (default)
• If purchased MIN exceeds the Emissions Parameter, distribute the planned emissions and burn 100% of the surplus in-window via policy-level burn

Option B – 90% burn / 10% Labs
• If purchased MIN exceeds the Emissions Parameter, distribute the planned emissions, then burn 90% of the surplus and transfer 10% to the Labs wallet in-window
Treasury address: the governance-approved treasury address is added to the allow-list for surplus transfers; the split is fixed at 90% burn / 10% Labs under this MIP

5. Motivation

Minswap should adopt this MIP to replace reserve-funded LP emissions with a continuous, revenue-funded mechanism. Each month, ADA staking rewards are used to buy MIN on the open market and to fund the emissions plan for LPs. This makes LP rewards non-inflationary at baseline, creates consistent buy pressure for MIN, and turns periods of higher revenue into a deflationary outcome through a governed surplus rule. The mechanism is simple to understand, easy to audit on chain, and removes any reliance on the Yield Farming reserve for LP payouts.

Any purchased MIN above the target emissions in a window is treated under one of two options selected by the DAO: Option A burns 100% of the surplus; Option B burns 90% and allocates 10% to Labs. Centering distributions on purchased MIN aligns incentives with real protocol performance while putting MIN at the core of value accrual for liquidity providers.

Finally, the design reduces complexity for users and governance. It standardizes how LP rewards are sourced, gives a single monthly reconciliation with hashes and amounts, and removes the inflationary path that reserve emissions imply. In short, it is a measured shift to real-yield incentives that matches where Minswap is as a protocol.

6. Rationale

This MIP aligns with the Minswap community’s mission of running a sustainable, transparent, and fee-anchored DEX. It pays LPs from MIN that the protocol actually purchases with staking-rewards ADA, not from reserves. That establishes a non-inflationary baseline for LP rewards and turns surplus revenue into a predictable reduction in circulating supply when buybacks exceed the emissions plan. Rules are minimal and auditable: a monthly window, a capped distribution equal to the plan or what was purchased, and a surplus rule chosen by governance.

To show how this behaves on recent history, the table below applies today’s prices to the last twelve months of staking-rewards ADA only. We assume the LP emissions plan equals the planning floor of 25,000 MIN per day. Prices used here are MIN 0.02365 USD and ADA 0.872 USD, which imply 36.871036 MIN per ADA. For each month we show the MIN that would have been bought, the target distributed to LPs, and the surplus outcomes under Option A and Option B (with 10 percent to Labs).

Projection using past staking-rewards ADA, priced at today’s rate (LP emissions target = 25k MIN/day × days in month; buybacks priced at MIN 0.02365 USD, ADA 0.872 USD → 36.871036 MIN/ADA)

Month Staking-rewards ADA MIN bought Target MIN Surplus Burn A 100% Burn B 90% Labs 10% (Option B)
2024-08 177,491 6,544,277 775,000 5,769,277 5,769,277 5,192,349 576,928
2024-09 154,121 5,682,601 750,000 4,932,601 4,932,601 4,439,341 493,260
2024-10 158,606 5,635,968 775,000 4,860,968 4,860,968 4,374,871 486,097
2024-11 144,627 5,333,547 750,000 4,583,547 4,583,547 4,125,192 458,355
2024-12 121,888 4,496,137 775,000 3,721,137 3,721,137 3,348,223 372,914
2025-01 129,108 4,763,346 775,000 3,988,346 3,988,346 3,589,811 398,535
2025-02 106,666 3,934,886 700,000 3,234,886 3,234,886 2,911,597 323,289
2025-03 115,628 4,264,327 775,000 3,489,327 3,489,327 3,140,494 348,833
2025-04 124,846 4,602,201 750,000 3,852,201 3,852,201 3,467,881 384,320
2025-05 147,816 5,449,129 775,000 4,674,129 4,674,129 4,206,716 467,413
2025-06 118,158 4,357,608 750,000 3,607,608 3,607,608 3,246,847 360,761
2025-07 107,005 3,945,385 775,000 3,170,385 3,170,385 2,853,347 317,038
TOTAL 1,605,960 59,213,409 9,125,000 50,088,409 50,088,409 45,079,567 5,008,842

Takeaway: On a standardized basis, past staking-rewards ADA would have purchased about 59.21 million MIN over the last twelve months against a target of 9.125 million MIN, fully funding LP emissions and leaving roughly 50.09 million MIN surplus. Under Option A the entire surplus would be burned; under Option B about 45.08 million MIN would be burned and about 5.01 million MIN would be allocated to Labs. These are projections priced at today’s rate for comparability; they illustrate the mechanism’s coverage and the deflationary effect of surplus.

7. Key Terms

Buyback: market purchase of the protocol token using protocol revenue.

Real-yield emissions: rewards funded by actual protocol revenue rather than new issuance.

Liquidity Provider (LP): user who supplies assets to a DEX pool and receives fees and, when active, token rewards.

AMM liquidity pool: on-chain pool where swaps clear and where LPs deposit assets; venue for buybacks and price discovery.

Staking rewards: base-asset revenue from protocol staking, used to fund buybacks.

Emissions plan: scheduled LP rewards for a given period.

Window: fixed accounting period bundling revenue aggregation, buybacks, distributions, surplus handling, and public reconciliation.

Shortfall: purchases below the plan; distribute only what was bought.

Surplus: purchases above the plan; extra handled per the active policy.

Surplus Policy: governed rule for treating any surplus within the same window.

Burn: tokens permanently removed by sending them to a designated burn address.

Coverage ratio: purchased tokens for LPs divided by the scheduled LP emissions for the window.

VWAP / slippage: execution price metrics reported for transparency during buybacks.

Reconciliation post: public per-window report with on-chain references for revenue, purchases, distributions, surplus treatment, and coverage.

8. Specifications

Platforms and Components

  • Chain and asset: Cardano L1; MIN is a native asset under the existing policy.
  • Execution venue: buybacks on the Minswap MIN/ADA pool with paced execution (for example TWAP) and slippage caps; execution metrics and VWAP recorded.
  • Burn mechanism: Tokens are permanently removed by sending them to a designated burn address.
  • Inputs (sources): staking-rewards ADA
  • Custody: Labs multisig controls the revenue wallet, buyback wallet, and burn flow; signer thresholds and segregation of duties apply.
  • Allow-list: staking-rewards source address, the MIN policy ID, and the Labs address when Option B is active.

Communication metrics:

  • Coverage ratio: purchased MIN for LPs divided by the scheduled LP emissions.

  • Surplus disposition: amount burned and, if Option B, amount sent to the Labs address.

  • Buyback summary: ADA spent and MIN acquired with VWAP and observed slippage.

  • LP distribution delivered: scheduled versus distributed.

  • Cumulative program stats: cumulative MIN purchased, burned, and sent to Labs (if applicable), plus average coverage ratio and number of completed windows.

9. Steps to Implement

Governance:

  • Temp Check: present the two options, execution authority (Minswap Labs), and source order.

  • On-chain vote: put the same parameters on chain

  • Mandate: authorize Labs to operate the mechanism on an ongoing basis with monthly reporting; governance may pause or amend via standard process.

Execution

  • Pre-checks: confirm custody and signer thresholds; verify ADA staking-rewards wallet balances; snapshot pre-window supply.

  • Accumulate and stage: at the close of each month, transfer the ADA staking rewards generated by Staking-Rewards ADA into the designated buyback wallet.

  • Buybacks: during the following month, Minswap Labs uses the staged ADA to purchase MIN on the MIN/ADA pool. Purchases may be executed in one or more transactions, but all buybacks must be completed before the end of the month. Record amounts, timestamps, and VWAP for each purchase.

  • Distributions: at the end of the month, distribute the purchased MIN from the buyback wallet to LPs up to the emissions plan. If below plan, distribute the remainder from the Yield Farming Reserve.

  • Surplus: apply the active Surplus Policy within the same window. Under Option A, all surplus is burned. Under Option B, 90% of the surplus is burned and 10% is allocated to Labs. Burn transactions are executed to the designated burn address, and all transaction hashes are included in the reconciliation post.

  • Confirm and report: publish the reconciliation post with ADA collected, MIN purchased, distributions delivered, surplus treatment, coverage ratio, and transaction references.

10. Timeline

  • Temp Check: 7 days
  • On-chain vote: begins within 7 days after Temp Check passes; lasts 7 days
  • Pre-execution setup: up to 3 business days after vote passage
  • Activation: within 1 business day after setup
  • Monthly cycle: At the close of each month, ADA staking rewards are transferred into the buyback wallet; Buybacks and distributions are executed within the following month
  • Monthly reporting: published within 3 business days after each window closes

11. Overall Cost

  • External spend: $4,000 success-based consulting fee to AQube, payable only if this proposal passes and is officially implemented. This follows the cost structure approved under the AQube – Strategic MIN Tokenomics Revitalization mandate.

  • Network fees: minimal; reported with actuals in the final post.

  • Manpower: executed by Minswap Labs using existing multisig and operations; no third-party grants.

  • Recurring costs: none.

Voting Options (to be extracted for the onchain vote)

  • Pass with Option A (100% surplus burned)
  • Pass with Option B (90% surplus burned, 10% allocated to Labs)
  • No, do not pass this proposal
0 voters
5 Likes

From my perspective, there are 3 things that require clarification:

  1. In Option B, does the 10% go to Labs or the DAO Treasury?
  2. I don’t understand what “staking” mechanism is being used to purchase the $MIN tokens. Is it $MIN staking or is it the staking rewards obtained from the ADA in liquidity pools?
  3. There is no evidence or data supporting the need for a token burn through the buyback mechanism. Why not allocate excess MIN towards MIN staking rewards? Given that the long-term staking option is a '“9-month soft-lock”, it would take the bought back tokens an average of 4.5 months to impact the market. This is just an example, but there are multiple use-cases for the excess buyback other than a burn.

In my opinion this proposal is not ready to go on-chain due to:

  1. The lack of clarity regarding the source of liquidity for the buyback mechanism.
  2. The lack of evidence supporting a burn - when capital could be allocated towards incentives (buyback > burn = low capital efficiency).
  3. The lack of monitoring mechanisms or evaluation plans so as to allow for improvements and/or a rollback. A trial period ought to be considered.
5 Likes

No it is not. Where’s the evidence showing that taking away LP incentives will drive TVL into the DEX? Additionally, why not simply buy back the necessary amount of MIN to cover for emissions (effectively turning $MIN into a non-inflationary token) and keeping the rest of ADA as LP incentives? What good does lighting cash on fire do? I believe the negatives of burning heavily outweigh the positives.

But my main concern is that there is no evidence or data to support the burn rationale**.** Where is the research? What are the expected outcomes of performing the burn vs. not performing the burn? What are acceptable outcomes and non-acceptable outcomes? This proposal is severely lacking in rigor and proof.

2 Likes

Use buybacks only to neutralize farming-driven inflation; keep all remaining ADA as cash reserves. With MIN’s capped supply and an active burn proposal, extra buyback-and-burn offers no added value and reduces treasury flexibility.

3 Likes

I agree with the sentiment others have expressed.

Offsetting emissions with buy back seems logical.

Anything above and beyond should be considered carefully. Im not a fan of burn for burn sake.

If we want to keep buy pressure up I am cool with purchasing the min but I don’t think we should burn it.

Maybe use it to lend on protocols like fluid for additional yield, and to give the market more arbitrage opportunities (increased trading volume) on the $Min token?

We need to think about this revenue spend carefully. Using the ada that would be used to buy back anything above emissions could be deployed into developing a service people pay $Min for. That would effectively do the same thing but give Min more utility, add an additional revenue stream, and create the possibility of an even higher reduction of the circulating float (ie what strike is doing with their AI partnership and using their token for a subscription).

Anyways something to consider.

2 Likes