Proposal for a Fee Increase in the Money on Chain and RIF on Chain Protocols

Dear Money on Chain and RIF on Chain Communities,

As co-founder of the protocols, I would like to present a proposal to increase the fees on both protocols, Money on Chain and RIF on Chain. This proposal has two main goals: to improve the tokenomics of the MoC token and to provide additional funding for mimLABS.

Fee Allocation to mimLABS:

As Money On Chain is now a decentralized protocol, the team behind MOC and ROC protocols improvements and communications is evolving to work under mimLABS.

I propose that 50% of the fees collected by the protocols be allocated directly to mimLABS. This allocation will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it aligns with the project’s needs and objectives. The funds raised will enable mimLABS to continue the development and maintenance of both protocols, as well as to increase their adoption through outreach and community building efforts.

Please note that over 50% of the current Staking Rewards comes from the minting of new MoC tokens. This Rewards stream will continue to be distributed 100% to MoC holders, and none of it will be allocated to mimLABS.

Fee Increase:

Currently, the fees on both protocols are well below the industry standards. Therefore, we propose the following changes to the fee structure for both Money on Chain and RIF on Chain:

  • The fee for minting or redeeming tokens paid with RBTC or RIF will increase from 0.1 to 0.2.
  • The fee for minting or redeeming tokens paid with MoC tokens will increase from 0.05 to 0.15.
  • The weekly fee paid by the Bpros will increase from 0.0048% to 0.01962%%

Given that the BPRO tokens have appreciated significantly in Bitcoin, we believe that this fee increase is reasonable and will not adversely affect the tokens’ attractiveness.


We invite all community members to participate in the vote on this proposal for both Money on Chain and RIF on Chain protocols. Your input is crucial to the future of our projects, and we appreciate your continued support.

If the vote is favorable, the proposed changes will be applied to both Money on Chain and RIF on Chain protocols.


Max Carjuzaa

Co Founder of Money on Chain


No. 100% of fees should be allocated to MOC Holders. mimLABS members are MOC holders. You are double counting.

It does not make sense. You should reduce fees, not increase them. That would reduce the low traction that the protocol has.

I think that, for hodlers, the change of fees will be OK since they are not minting and redeeming all the time. I see the MoC protocol as something to mint BPRO and hodl (or redeem, eventually) or to mint DOC and use them (spend or save).

For fancier more complex activities, there are other alternatives such as secondary markets and other DeFi or CeFi projects to buy, sell, lend, borrow or bet using DOC/BPRO/RBTC/RDOC/RIF.

I also believe that the protocol will continue needing the baby-sitting of mimLABS, at least until it becomes so widely used that the community will be big enough to manage it (or until it becomes so small that nobody will care).

BTW, I understand that mimLABS is a non-profit organization. Of course, I think that mimLABS should maintain a public report (or semi-public only visible to MOC holders with over a certain amount of MOC tokens) to keep the community informed about its expenses and plans.

I imagine that having mimLABS keeping an eye on the MoC protocol is a much better deal than keeping the fees low (lower than other DeFi protocols, at least) so as to make it easier for speculators to take advantage from that.

Also, mimLABS pays for the dapp servers, the domains, hosts the forum, etc. We will need all of these to build a community.

Paying 0.2% (or even 0.3%) to mint or redeem a stablecoin from and to BTC seems ridiculously inexpensive to me.

And ,the BPRO fee is part of the price of the BPRO token so you don’t have to consider it separately in your estimations. As a matter of fact, nowadays there is a fee that no one even cares about. The new fee will be higher? OK, but the BPRO price should still be attractive for people who are long on BTC. If the BPRO price is excessively affected by the new fee, it can always be reduced by voting a new proposal. It will be extremely easy for anyone to build the new proposal because it should be a cut and paste of the present proposal but with a lower fee.

And don’t forget that, if you don’t lend the BPRO token, the MOC liquidity mining program nowadays is returing roughly 0.5%/year in MOC tokens value for your BPRO tokens.

In summary, I am totally in favor of having a non-profit organization with the same people that designed and built the protocol, teaching about it and maintaning the basic infrastructure to keep it visible. I believe that such structure would add much more to the MoC protocol adoption than hiper-low fees.

Besides, there are no rules in bitcoin except those of the code, so, what better than having a team of experts at hand to be prepared to react against potential attacks or issues?

Every MOC holder, those who have skin in the game, must understand all of these aspects and vote in favor of the proposal.


EN CONTRA de esta propuesta. El solo hecho de proponerla refleja lo lejos que están de los active users.

Para que esta propuesta tenga sentido, tienen que generar adopción de RDOC/DOC para que que tenga mercados secundarios líquidos. Y hoy es casi nulo la existencia de mercados secundarios de DOC, y ni existen mercados secundarios de RDOC. Hoy, cuando vas a mercados secundarios, perdés plata por fees y por spreads.

Te contamos la problemática en persona.
Nosotros no somos MOC holders ni BIPRO holders, pero cobramos o hemos cobrado o dejaremos de cobrar sueldos en RDOC y DOC. Somos más de 50 usuarios activos de la stablecoin. Un BIPRO holder es un usuario pasivo. Pero sin usuarios activos, pierde sentido la existencia del protocolo.

Los pocos usuarios que cobramos sueldos en RDOC o DOC, tenemos que usar si o si RIF on Chain o Money on Chain . Y ya es muy caro y engorroso usar DOC o RDOC para nosotros. Hacé las cuentas, si también sumás todos los fees cuando queremos salir a un activo con liquidez más inmediata (Ej. BTC, FIAT, USDT, etc).

En caso de que uno prefiera no operar directo contra el protocolo, se opera con OTC brokers (son 1 o 2). Nos pasan comisiones altísimas porque ellos hacen el mismo proceso que nosotros. Te cobran 8% y te lo justifican bien, te dicen que tienen que salir a BSC, Ethereum o Bitcoin, entonces ellos ya tienen un alto costo de entrar/salir de RSK. Que ustedes decidan aumentar los fees es ilógico, es como que nos fuerzan a exigir no cobrar más sueldos en RDOC/DOC. Hasta están forzando a los pocos OTC brokers, que mueven volúmenes más grandes, a tener un costo aún mayor al existente cuando se opera DOC/RDOC.

Están tomando estas decisiones a partir de supuestos que no existen, como por ejemplo que para eso están los mercados secundarios cuando NO hay mercados secundarios líquidos para DOC/RDOC. Los pocos usuarios que existen usan únicamente Mercado primario (protocolo) porque no hay mercados secundarios. Y con esta propuesta los están castigando. Primero dediquense a fomentar mercados secundarios líquidos, y después hagan esta propuesta.

Asumimos que ya saben todo esto, pero parece que no usan su propio protocolo, y quieren sacarle más plata a las únicas personas que usan DOC/RDOC todos los meses, de forma voluntaria u obligada.

Aclaro que si soy usuario del protocolo, DOC es la Ăşnica stable coin que uso y holdeo bpro de largo plazo.

En que país pagas 8% de comisión para cambiar DOC por otra moneda? yo acá en uruguay pago entre 1% y 2%. No quiero llevarte la contra pero si la comisión que cobra tu broker es del 8% no parece que aumentar el fee en un 0.1% mueva mucho la aguja.

Al mismo tiempo pareciera que todo el problema se resolvería si fuera más sencillo y económico pasar de RBTC a BTC.

Actualmente los fees del protocolo están tan baratos que cuesta menos mintear o redimir doc que mover rbtc a btc usando el fast swap de sovryn. Inclusive con el aumento seguirá siendo más barato mintear DOC que comprarlos en un AMM. (en el amm tipicamente pagas un 0,3% para el pool + el fee del protocolo + slipage)

Qué bueno que estés usando DOC.

Como bien dijiste, todos cobran fees (y mucho mayores, como bien sabés). Creo que el aumento de 0,1% no debería impactar en el 8% que te cobran pero, como explicó Max, sí serviría para bancar la existencia de una fundación (mimLABS) que esté con un ojo encima en el protocolo para mejorar la probabilidad de ser adoptado en más exchanges y proyectos, y para minimizar la probabilidad de ser atacado. Un ínfimo aumento de fees representa un beneficio cualitativo para el ecosistema.

Por otra parte, en qué país estás? No te fue posible conseguir alternativas más baratas? Consultaste en el chat de Money on Chain de Telegram (Telegram: Contact @MoneyOnChainComunidadEsp)?


Founders wont recieve money that comes from this, so there is no double counting. The money will be used to pay, developers, hosting, community development, intregrations with other protocols etc.

1 Like

MOneyOnChain is the safest and oldest stablecoin protocol. I think that we need to increase awareness about why moneyonchian is so great and we need resources to do that

If 0.2% 0.3% fee will prevent people from minting DOC then DOC is not so interesting. Remember you do not have to pay to hold or transfer doc. We think that the problem is that very few people knows moneyinchain.

1 Like

Technical proposal here ==> Technical proposal for a Fee Increase in the Money on Chain and RIF on Chain Protocols


There is an addendum to the technical proposal where the details of the changers contracts are.
Please go to the deploy documentation in github repository for more detail.

:mega: Call to MOC holders: This proposal is being voted on. How to vote Tutorial.

:mega: Llamado a los MOC holders: Esta propuesta se está votando. Tutorial de cómo votar.

1 Like

:mega: The voting process is over:

  • 31.91 of the MOC tokens total supply participated in the vote.
  • 100% of the participants voted in favor.
  • No one voted against the proposal.
  • The change was successfully implemented.