# A new 50/50 allocation between Stakers and Buybacks to amplify DYDX’s impact.
**URL:** https://dydx.forum/t/a-new-50-50-allocation-between-stakers-and-buybacks-to-amplify-dydx-s-impact/4668
**Category:** Governance/DAO Discussions
**Created:** [October 28, 2025, 2:51pm UTC](https://dydx.forum/t/a-new-50-50-allocation-between-stakers-and-buybacks-to-amplify-dydx-s-impact/4668 "2025-10-28T14:51:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@thquattro](https://dydx.forum/u/thquattro)
#### Post date: [October 28, 2025, 2:51pm UTC](https://dydx.forum/t/a-new-50-50-allocation-between-stakers-and-buybacks-to-amplify-dydx-s-impact/4668/1 "2025-10-28T14:51:29Z")
This proposal aims to **adjust the current fee distribution** to maximize the impact of dYdX revenues on the **DYDX token price** and **further strengthen investor confidence** in the protocol’s long-term value.
**Proposed new distribution:**
- 50% Stakers
- 50% Buyback Program
- 0% Treasury SubDAO
- 0% Megavault
**Current distribution:**
- 40% Stakers
- 25% Buyback Program
- 25% Megavault
- 10% Treasury SubDAO
* * *
### 💡 Motivation
- The **Treasury SubDAO** already holds **over 60 million DYDX tokens** , making further 10% allocations unnecessary.
- The **Megavault** will benefit indirectly from higher token prices and increased protocol activity.
By allocating a larger share to **Stakers** and **Buybacks** , we strengthen buy pressure and staking incentives, potentially creating a positive feedback loop:
> **Price ↑ → Rewards ↑ → More Traders → Volume ↑ → Revenues ↑ → Price ↑**
* * *
### 📐 Specification
- Adjust fee distribution to:
* * *
### 🧠 Rationale
- **Stakers (50%)**: Increased rewards drive greater staking participation and network support.
- **Buyback (50%)**: Higher structural demand supports DYDX price appreciation.
- **Treasury SubDAO (0%)**: Its large reserves make further allocations redundant.
- **Megavault (0%)**: Will benefit indirectly without requiring direct allocation.
* * *
### 🌐 Expected Impact
- Positive price action through larger buybacks.
- **Boosted confidence among current and future investors.**
- Higher staking participation.
- Stronger trading incentives → more traders → higher volume → increased protocol revenue.
- Self-reinforcing growth loop.
* * *
### 🛠 Implementation
- Smart contract parameter update.
- Governance vote.
- Community communication and coordination with SubDAOs.
I invite all community members to share their thoughts and support this proposal to help dYdX reach its full potential through a more impactful fee allocation. 😀
---
### Author:  [@staza](https://dydx.forum/u/staza)
#### Post date: [October 28, 2025, 3:53pm UTC](https://dydx.forum/t/a-new-50-50-allocation-between-stakers-and-buybacks-to-amplify-dydx-s-impact/4668/2 "2025-10-28T15:53:04Z")
Now we have two DRCs regarding buybacks 🙂
IMHO your’s looks good for a long run. My suggestion is to add it after mine (100% buybacks for 3 months).
---
### Author:  [@thquattro](https://dydx.forum/u/thquattro)
#### Post date: [October 28, 2025, 3:58pm UTC](https://dydx.forum/t/a-new-50-50-allocation-between-stakers-and-buybacks-to-amplify-dydx-s-impact/4668/3 "2025-10-28T15:58:20Z")
Sounds great! I’m totally fine with that plan 👍
---
### Author:  [@Dmitriy](https://dydx.forum/u/Dmitriy)
#### Post date: [October 28, 2025, 5:10pm UTC](https://dydx.forum/t/a-new-50-50-allocation-between-stakers-and-buybacks-to-amplify-dydx-s-impact/4668/4 "2025-10-28T17:10:09Z")
LFG. I’d start with a trial experiment at 100%. After that, we can move on to finding the right balance, gradually reducing it in steps (let’s say 90/10 **→** 80/20 **→** 70/30), since it’s quite difficult to determine the optimal ratio between staking yield and the token’s price impact
The positive price impact should take priority, because APR alone can’t offset a negative token price movement. That’s why even with the current 40% allocation, staking doesn’t look attractive. The goal is to maintain a positive impact on the token’s price while still providing a reasonable staking yield. But we’ll see, maybe we won’t even want to move away from the 100% allocation! : )