Proposal to Utilize Batcher Fees for $MIN Buyback and Burn Mechanism


The Minswap community has witnessed significant advancements, with the latest being the MIN tokenomics V2. With the introduction of batcher fees as a new revenue source, it’s paramount that we strategically use this resource to fortify the position of $MIN and ensure the continued dominance and success of our DEX.

The Challenge: Falling $MIN Token Price

Recent market dynamics have led to a declining trend in the $MIN token price. This not only affects our current token holders but can have cascading effects on the entire ecosystem:

  1. Reduced Farming Yields: A declining $MIN token price will translate to reduced farming yields.
  2. Drop in Total Value Locked (TVL): Lower yields can discourage liquidity provision, leading to a decline in TVL.
  3. Decreased Trading Volumes: A decline in TVL leads to lower volumes. As the primary business of our DEX, reduced volumes can impact revenue generation and the platform’s overall growth.

The Solution: Buyback and Burn Mechanism Using Batcher Fees

To counteract the declining token price and its potential ripple effects, I propose using the batcher fees revenue to buy back and subsequently burn $MIN tokens.


  1. Counteract Selling Pressure: Regular buybacks will introduce consistent buying pressure in the market, potentially stabilizing or increasing the token price.
  2. Increase Token Scarcity for All: Burning the bought-back tokens will reduce the circulating supply, inherently increasing the value of each remaining token. This mechanism is designed to benefit all $MIN token holders, not just a subset such as stakers. By focusing on all holders, we embrace a democratic approach that acknowledges every participant in the ecosystem. This reinforces our commitment to equal distribution of benefits from Protocol Owned Liquidity (POL) and ensures that rewards aren’t disproportionately allocated.
  3. Send a Strong Message: Such a move will signal our commitment to maintaining the $MIN token’s value, discouraging potential sellers and instilling confidence in the community.

Data Analysis: October 2023

To better understand the potential impact of this proposal, it’s helpful to dive into recent data. Here’s a breakdown of figures from October 2023:

  1. Daily Batcher Fees: Approximately 6.5k ADA/day
  2. Monthly Batcher Fees: This translates to roughly 195k ADA for the entire month.
  3. Comparison with Emissions: The buyback figure represents only about 30% of the daily emissions. Though not a dominant figure, it’s substantial enough to influence market dynamics.
  4. Potential Buying Pressure: With the implementation of this proposal, there would be a new buying pressure of around 0.2MM ADA monthly, or 3.45MM $MIN at current prices.

Impact Analysis:

While the new buying pressure might seem modest in comparison to the selling pressure, its regularity and consistency could introduce crucial stability to the market. Here’s how:

  1. Stabilizing Price: Even though the buying pressure from batcher fees would counteract only 30% of the daily emissions, this continuous and predictable buying can act as a buffer, helping stabilize the price.
  2. Instilling Confidence: The introduction of a regular buyback mechanism sends a clear signal to the market about the project’s commitment to maintaining token value. This can deter potential sellers and might even reverse selling trends over time.
  3. Multiplier Effect: Consistent buying can lead to improved market sentiment, potentially attracting more investors and traders to the ecosystem.

Foreseeable Difficulties

One of the challenges that may arise from this proposal pertains to the execution timing of the buybacks. Specific concerns include:

  1. Frontrunning Risks: Direct, predictable buybacks could expose the process to frontrunning, where certain market participants take advantage of the knowledge of an impending buyback to manipulate prices.
  2. Optimal Execution Strategy: To counteract frontrunning and other market manipulations, buybacks should be executed strategically. Rather than making bulk purchases, the strategy should involve:
  • Matching limit orders where possible.
  • Executing buybacks at random intervals and in varied quantities.
  • Spreading out buyback operations over time, even though the dedicated account gets replenished monthly.
  1. Timing Lag: Given these considerations, it might be prudent to have a lag in the buyback execution, using funds from the previous month. This provides a buffer period to ensure a more unpredictable and strategic buyback pattern.

Call to Action

The strength of our DEX lies in our ability to adapt and take proactive measures. This proposal aims to protect the interests of our loyal community and ensure the sustained growth of Minswap. I urge all members to support this initiative so we can bring it on-chain for implementation.

By endorsing this proposal, we not only address the immediate challenge but also pave the way for a robust and resilient future for Minswap and all its stakeholders.

This proposal can be revisited in the future and redirected elswhere if the DAO thinks it is a better option, but for the time being, we would give some utility to that ADA which now has none.


Tremendous proposal. Should definitely be considered within a mix of other value adding ideas. This focuses on the supply side, I am also interested in generating interest from the demand side.


That one is spot on.

Can we start this process using the whole POL ADA already accumulated and making daily buys to counter the current min emissions?

Currently the batchers fees wallet has more then 250k ADA, we could start by making something like 10k ADA daily buybacks and when finished we go on with the daily fees generated.


Yep that could work, something like that at least, im not sure announcing buybacks and quantities is smart though, frontrunning happens and I would not want some people to benefit thinking they are smarter than everyone else, I think randomness is in the best interest for all

1 Like

This is indeed spot on. The only concern I have is thst the batcher fees and treasury are kind of important. Treasury can be used and voted on by community to do things like cex listings, acquisitions, etc. Also Uniswap now added a 0.11% fee to pay their devs and keep them going… To prevent things like this and allow sustainability the treasury and batcher fees will be needed. So maybe instead of all of the batcher fees maybe atleast 50%. Idk :man_shrugging:

I unfortunately think this is a very inefficient use of the DAO’s revenue.

  1. Built-in burning of a token makes sense only when the supply isn’t capped (the policy is open, but at the moment the tokenomics are clear).

  2. If a token burn is approved, it’ll be in a way which impacts price and the current state of the DEX as little as possible. Otherwise, the wrong message will be sent.

This makes the burning of MIN after a buyback unnecessary and consequently the reasons for the buyback itself are weakened.

IMO, the DAO should be looking at strengthening liquidity within the DEX overall in order to facilitate smooth operations where needed.

I’d rather vote to turn the ADA into POL and provide liquidity into pairs that need it. Thus deepening liquidity and reducing price impact of trades.

1 Like

This essentially functions as a platform-wide tax, that is payed for every swap in addition to the liquidity provider fees and fee switch. The described buyback and burn mechanism would be superior to burning yet undistributed tokens, as the latter could undermine the goal of decentralization.

It’s worth considering this proposal, because this tax allows the platform usage to be in a direct correlation with the price of MIN. MIN price would to some extent reflect the amount of trades happening on the DEX.

1 Like

I completely agree with you and your reply rather than CWS’s