[SIPS-105] Upcoming Turbo crvUSD Proposal

[SIPS-105] Upcoming Turbo crvUSD Proposal


The goal of this forum post is to discuss the upcoming Cellar proposal asking Governance to accept the Turbo CRVUSD strategy.


Curve launched crvUSD along with several compelling yield opportunities on the Curve AMM. At present, there are several crvUSD pools that offer competitive stablecoin yields. Given the diversity of yield opportunities, a challenge for users interested in onboarding into the crvUSD ecosystem is selecting and moving between yield opportunities.

We believe that Sommelier Cellars can solve this problem by (1) creating a simple interface for users to onboard into the crvUSD ecosystem and (2) optimizing yield across the many crvUSD opportunities.

The vault will accept crvUSD as deposit asset (and possible other stables such as USDC and USDT, TBD).

It will utilize Convex/Curve as protocols, and may take exposure to a subset of the following assets:i

  • USDC
  • USDT
  • mkUSD
  • FRAX
  • sUSD
  • USDP
  • TUSD

Proposal for cellar authorization for strategy Turbo CRVUSD

If approved, the chain will accept signed function calls submitted to the cellar contract from the strategy provider.

Name: Turbo CRVUSD

Cellar share token: TurboCRVUSD

Strategy providers: Seven Seas Capital

Deployment: CellarWithOracleWithBalancerFlashLoansWithMultiAssetDeposit | Address 0x6a6731f1754e3088ea35c8ddfd55cFF4d0FA5052 | Etherscan

Platform fee: 1% (0.85% for strategy provider + 0.15% for protocol)

Performance fee: 20% (17% for strategy provider, 3% for protocol)

Why do the latest batches of vaults all have the strategy provider taking an overwhelming majority of the platform fee?

I can understand the performance fee, but imo a majority of the platform fee should be going to the protocol…especially considering the strategy provider is also the third largest validator in the set, the rest of the stakeholders of the protocol are getting squeezed out.

I truly appreciate everything Seven Seas is doing for Sommelier, but I would strongly reconsider this split for the betterment of the protocol and SOMM the asset.