I’d like to share a set of simple and practical proposals that can strengthen OGN’s utility, reduce circulating supply, and improve institutional credibility:
1. Split Buybacks: 80% to stakers, 20% burn (on-chain, weekly cadence).
2. OGN Fee Utility: Pay product fees in OGN with a 20–30% discount (auto-swap UX).
3. xOGN Boosts: Fee rebates, priority withdrawals, and higher vault boosts by lock tiers (365/730/1460d via non-transferable lock NFTs).
4. Pendle PT/YT: Enable xOGN buyback yields to be split into Principal & Yield Tokens to attract specialized liquidity and transparently price the yield.
5. Public Buyback Dashboard: Transparent dashboard showing next run, source, tx, burned vs. distributed.
Questions for the community:
• Which of these proposals should we prioritize first?
• Are there any technical considerations we should address before moving to Snapshot / On-chain?
Thanks for the suggestions, @Kufaq8. We appreciate any opinions on how to improve OGN tokenomics.
I’m curious to hear more about the burn proposal. If 20% of fees were excluded from the staking rewards, this would mean lower yield for stakers and–potentially–lower participation. What’s the case for burn being a better use of the bought back OGN?
The Pendle proposal is also intriguing. I don’t think it would work with the current xOGN implementation because it’s non-transferrable and the unlock date isn’t uniform across all of the tokens. Are there any cases where something like that has been split on Pendle?
Hi Micah, thank you for engaging with these ideas. Let me provide more context on both points:
On the burn proposal:
The intention isn’t to weaken staking incentives, but to introduce a balanced mechanism. A modest allocation of buybacks (e.g., 15–20%) toward permanent burns can create a gradual deflationary pressure without undermining the majority of rewards. This hybrid model has been used effectively in other ecosystems: consistent burns signal long-term scarcity, which may support price stability and, in turn, enhance staking attractiveness rather than reduce it. The aim is to align both stakers and holders with a stronger narrative of value preservation.
On the Pendle-style concept:
I agree the current non-transferability of xOGN is a major limitation. One possible direction is to tokenize only the future yield streams (separated from the locked principal). These standardized claim tokens could then be transferable and tradeable, while the underlying xOGN remains locked until maturity. Pendle’s precedent shows that splitting principal vs. yield can unlock new demand from sophisticated investors who want predictable cash flows or discounted entry into future rewards. Even if full compatibility is complex, experimenting with a yield-token wrapper for a portion of xOGN could demonstrate feasibility and attract new liquidity.
Ultimately, the goal is not to disrupt what’s working, but to layer in additional mechanisms—burn for scarcity and yield tokenization for flexibility—so that OGN can evolve from a simple staking token into a more robust DeFi primitive.
One possible approach would be to introduce a wrapper or side contract that only tokenizes the yield streams from buybacks. This way, the underlying xOGN design remains untouched, while a parallel market for yield claims could be created.
Questions for the community:
• Which of these proposals should we prioritize first?
• Are there any technical considerations we should address before moving to Snapshot / On-chain?