[TEMP CHECK] Gas Fee Rebate for On-Chain Votes


The London Business School (LBS) Blockchain Society, in alliance with Flipside Governance (@fig), FranklinDAO (@PennBlockchain), the University of Michigan (@Michigan_Blockchain), and Columbia University (@BlockchainAtColumbia), proposes to institute a gas fee rebate mechanism for recognised delegates voting on-chain on Aave.


Gas fees on Ethereum have been increasing recently. As shown by data from Dune Analytics, median gas prices sit at around 30 gwei, with intradaily spikes often far exceeding that level. The amount of gas fees required for voting on-chain has therefore risen proportionally, increasing the cost of on-chain governance for delegates (particularly in light of the heavier recent proposal load at Aave).

To find out more about gas costs on Aave, refer to the following dashboards created by Flipside here:

LBS Blockchain Society, like other peer universities, is a not-for-profit, student-run organisation that depends on sponsorships and stipends to finance its operations. We currently receive monthly compensation for participating in MakerDAO governance, but otherwise receive no other form or income. Other schools like FranklinDAO (Penn Blockchain) are in very similar states. So far, we have been using this to cover gas costs at Aave, but the cost of on-chain governance remains a growing concern for us.

In light of this, we see rebating delegates for their participation as having the following benefits:

  • Incentivise more active engagement of the delegate community by removing the disincentive to vote. Broader participation leads to better decision-making for Aave.
  • Create a more diverse voter base that includes student organisations such as ours. Reducing the barrier to entry for voting creates a more open, collaborative delegate ecosystem. This in turn drives participation.
  • Retain the best delegates to drive growth of the Aave ecosystem. Aave should remain competitive with its peers (e.g., Maker) to attract and retain the best delegate talent. The fundamental cost of being a great Aave delegate should not be at a net cost to the delegate with regards to spending ever-increasing gas costs.
  • Achievable at relatively low cost. We also outline measures to reduce the administrative burden for Aave below.


Participation Criteria

To incentivise maximal voter participation, we propose a participation-based rebate system. Participation is defined by the proportion of proposals, being the sum total of Snapshot polls and AIPs, voted on by a Recognized Delegate over the lesser of: 1) the previous 90 days, or 2) since becoming a Recognized Delegate. A Participation score of 100% would mean that a Delegate has voted on all polls and AIPs over this period. Moreover, only delegate platforms with 10k+ AAVE in voting power will be eligible for gas fee rebates, in order to avoid spam - the 10k is a small enough number to allow for enough delegate participation but filters out any spam.

Note: A Recognized Delegate is one with an Aave Delegate Platform, such as the LBS Blockchain Society, University of Michigan, FranklinDAO, Flipside, Llama, Aave Chan Initiative, Stablelabs, etc. The list of Recognized Delegates is open to change over time. A list of Aave Delegate Platforms can be found here, but note that there are a few new platforms and all of them may not have the required 10k AAVE voting power.

Participation Rate over Previous 90 days Gas Rebate
>80% 100%
50% to 80% 50%
<50% 0%

Claiming Process

To reduce the administrative burden for Aave, we propose the claiming process should be initiated by Recognized Delegates themselves. Every month, Recognized Delegates have the option to submit a Gas Rebate Application to Aave, which shall include:

  1. The list of transactions associated with voting on Aave proposals over that month
  2. The corresponding gas fees spent on each transaction
  3. Etherscan links detailing the above

Delegates can also choose to batch their Gas Rebate Applications (i.e. submit a single application for multiple months). However, any gas fees not claimed over a 12 month period will be automatically forfeited.

Once an application has been submitted to Aave, an appointed Governance Facilitator will review the applications and submit an AIP to pay out the gas fees. To that end, we have created a Dune dashboard that the Governance Facilitator can use to calculate the gas costs paid by a specific address, i.e., the address used by delegates to vote. The dashboard can be found here. Initially, we propose that the Aave Chan Initiative plays the role of Governance Facilitator.

To calculate the participation rate for delegates, we recommend using the following formula:

Number of Proposals Voted on Since First Vote / Total Number of Proposals Since First Vote

For example, assume a Delegate Platform’s first vote was on Jan 1 2023. If they apply for a gas rebate on Feb 1 2023, and there have been 20 proposals between Jan 1 and Feb 1, out of which the Delegate has voted for 17 proposals, their participation rate is 85%.

We are working to publish a tool to easily calculate participation rate for the Governance Facilitator and will update this post once it is ready.

We propose the funds to be paid from the Ethereum v2 Collector Contract, but defer to the community for guidance on the most appropriate source of funds.

Gas Rebate Token

We consider two options for the Gas Rebate Token: 1) ETH, the native asset in which gas fees are paid, and 2) stablecoins (e.g. USDC, DAI).

The list of holdings in the Ethereum v2 Collector Contract can be found here.

Each option above has associated trade-offs (for example certain assets may be deemed more strategic than others, or represent larger existing holdings). We would welcome community feedback on the most appropriate asset in advance of voting.


We have taken inspiration from MakerDAO’s MIP61: Recognized Delegate Compensation.

Other sources include Dune Analytics.


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.


This makes sense. I’m in favour of this proposal.


With the recent spikes in gas fees and some other protocols mitigating this cost for delegates, we wholeheartedly support this initiative as it’s only fair for delegates!

Thank you for this proposal @lbsblockchain and creating a Dune Dashboard gas costs. While I generally agree with a gas rebate for active Recognized Delegates along with the participation and minimum threshold criteria which has been proposed here, Recognized Delegates are not formally part of the AAVE governance process

First, there should be consensus in the DAO on ‘Recognized Delegates’ and only then can we agree on compensation.

1 Like

Thanks for your response @jengajojo!

The Aave Governance Process that you linked to above specifies delegates as ‘community members who have received voting power from other community members or through self-delegation’. Do you think merging this definition, along with the criteria we have outlined in our proposal (i.e., a Recognized Delegate is one with an Aave Delegate Platform + has 10k+ AAVE in voting power), is sufficient for the purposes of this proposal? Or are you aiming for something more formal?

I would suggest a separate poll/vote for Recognized Delegates and Compensation. Usually separating these two allows voters to evaluate them individually on their own merits and prevents no/abstain vote on entire proposals when there is disagreement on only one of the two points.


@jengajojo suggestions for more clearly defining what constitutes a “recognized delegate” and a separate vote for reimbursement seem to make sense.

I want to highlight our involvement here:

We are supportive of undergraduate and graduate groups recouping the cost of being involved in Aave and helped consult on this proposal. We also provide data to help inform voters and stakeholders.

Flipside resonates with the growing costs of governance participation - and believes it is worthwhile to support these teams above, such as LBS, Penn Blockchain, Michigan, and Columbia.

1 Like

We support this initiative; a significant cost and effort comes with participating in Aave Governance.

Gas Rebates are the first step to starting a broader conversation around Aave Delegate Compensation.

1 Like

Hi All,

I would like to highlight @Llamaxyz kicked off a conversation some time ago which touches on the broader topic of being a delegate and/or service provider. The intent was to decide, if there would be any funding allocated towards delegating platforms. It seems this proposal approaches the same topic from a different perspective.

Although it makes sense to fragment gas, time, delegation and service provider related costs, it also makes sense to look at this more holistically. It is important to note, to date, delegates have volunteered time, effort and ETH which is a notable contribution and may, or may not, have been undertaken with the expectation of monetary gain, direct or indirect, at a later date.

For me, the first question is, do we as a community want to allocate funding to delegation platforms ? If yes, then how… It seems gas costs are lowest and most palatable cost to seek reimbursement for. However it does anchor expectations around eligibility which can be expanded upon at a later date.

For example, some delegates submit AIPs which incur gas cost and have a larger impact upon the protocol itself. Some delegates may receive external funding and others may be representing there own or at times acting in the interest beyond that of an independent delegation platform. Each delegate would need be reviewed to understand there situation. This might need to go as far as mutual investors spanning other parts of the Aave ecosystem. DeFi is still small enough where a network of people can shape a lot of different communities. However, that said, I don’t think that would be the best use of our resources at this current point in time for Aave.

My opinion: Let AGD decide and allocate ETH for retrospective payments. AGD currently assigns a lot larger values of funding and currently has sufficient budget to do so.

I would encourage the conversation here to pivot towards a more structural / framework discussion which is to have more impact on the broader DAO operations. To float an idea, what if AGD facilitates some competition around coming up with a framework that introduces a structured approach to delegation platform funding. It could be kick started with a Temp Check to see if the community feels it is mature enough to accommodate this type of expense going forward.

I personally like how Maker has a structured approach and I do see value from a financial perspective having some quadrails around this could eventually grow into. I could be wrong, but I do assume gas reimbursement now, means time reimbursement request comes later…


Thanks @lbsblockchain and @MatthewGraham for starting the discussions on gas rebates and service provider & delegation platform relations.

We think the gas rebate is a good first step in the discussion of delegate compensation, as it is small in scope and in cost to the treasury, yet still encourages participation and makes it affordable for some delegates. Designing an overarching framework for what constitutes a service provider vs a delegate, and their respective compensations would take longer to achieve, as we should consider a participant’s impact, potential conflicts of interest, external sources of funding, etc.

We are in favor of moving forward the gas rebate initiative while simultaneously and separately engaging in discussion around a delegate / service provider compensation. framework.

This TEMP CHECK proposal has ACI’s full support.

We’re in favor of paying the gas rebate with the collector contract, in ETH, as gas is paid in eth, to simplify accounting. We think it should be a DAO treasury operating cost and there’s no need to require involvement from AGD.

1 Like

Hi all, just an update on this proposal: we will collaborate with @fig to first submit a proposal to identify the eligible ‘Recognized Delegates’ for this proposal and what the criteria for eligibility will be. We will then publish a Snapshot for the Recognized Delegate proposal, and if that passes, for this gas rebate proposal.

We also agree with @Michigan_Blockchain that this proposal should be kept separate from one about overall delegate compensation, since that is a separate and deeper topic that should be discussed independently.


We believe that Priority 1 is reimbursement of non-profit delegates such as @lbsblockchain @PennBlockchain, @Michigan_Blockchain and @BlockchainAtColumbia.

We do agree as well that it would be great to establish a framework around compensation of gas costs. The idea by @MatthewGraham of launching an AGD funded competition to get a framework running for delegation funding is very interesting.

Hi all, we’ve published this proposal as a Snapshot here for a TEMP CHECK, which will go live tomorrow at 17.00 GMT (25 April 2023).

We would love for you to participate!

1 Like