CP143: Change fee for Anemoy LTF

[martin]

cp: 143
title: Change fee for Anemoy LTF
authors: @martin
contributors : @sirj
uses-component: CP4
technical-proposal: yes
requires-onchain: yes
impacts/modifies: CP66
status: rfc
date-proposed: 2025-02-06
date-ended:

Short Summary

Anemoy Capital SPC Limited (Anemoy), the issuer of the LTF token and the Asset Manager of the Anemoy Liquid Treasury Fund 1 SP (LTF) proposes to change the fee from the current 7.5 basis points Management Fee and 7.5 basis points Protocol Fee to 15 basis points Management Fee without Protocol Fee.

High-level objective

Make the usage of the Centrifuge protocol more attractive for traditional Asset Managers like Janus Henderson Investors (JHI). The new fee structure will help close more of those strategic partnerships and grow TVL and investor adoption. Furthermore, strategic DeFi investors expect discounted fees, which the new fee structure will be able to support better.

Background

Anemoy and Centrifuge closed a strategic partnership with JHI, a $380 billion asset manager and leader in the ETF space. The first accomplishment of this partnership is the sub-advisory and sub-investor management of LTF. The fund will change its name to Janus Henderson Anemoy Treasury Fund and the token ticker/symbol will change from LTF to JTRSY.
JHI will manage all offchain parts of the fund processes, including portfolio management, investment strategy, trading, and NAV validation. The new fee will be split between Anemoy and JHI, meaning Anemoy will not earn more.
The new fee structure will support the partnership and in our opinion the partnership will drive investor adoption dramatically. This is underpinned by the Moody’s double A rating, which is best in class and could only be obtained because we partner with JHI, one of the most reputable ETF managers.

Description of Activity

This proposal seeks the approval of the community to lower the protocol fees for the Anemoy LTF pool (Pool ID – 4139607887).

## Change or improvement

• Change Protocol Fee for Anemoy LTF ( Pool ID – 4139607887 ) from 7.5 basis points to 0 basis points.
• Change Management Fee for Anemoy LTF ( Pool ID – 4139607887 ) from 7.5 basis points to 15 basis points. The fee will be calculated by Trident Trust and be delivered with their daily NAV calculation.

Alignment to the mission of Centrifuge DAO

Anemoy brings JHI onto the Centrifuge Ecosystem. This is a key partnership for Centrifuge’s mission to bring Asset Management onchain. A stop forward to tokenize every asset and to make finance accessible to everyone.

[Kate_Bee]

Hi,

I’m asking this question for the purpose of gathering more info:

If Anemoy LFT pays 0 protocol fees (and therefore nothing directly to the Centrifuge Treasury) do you think that might set a precedent for other (future) pools to demand a 0 protocol fee approach and hence effect the growth of the Centrifuge Treasury over time? If no, why?

(Note: it has paid approx $30K to date)

TY

[martin]

Ty @Kate_Bee for the obvious and most important questions

I’m also a co-founder of Centrifuge and a huge believer in and supporter of Centrifuge, the DAO, and CFG.

Anemoy, and that’s why I started it, is driving adoption by professional asset managers like Janus Henderson. It creates value by building products like our T-bill fund LTF and many more to follow. We would like to create value for investors and asset managers first until we are at a level where protocol value capture makes sense. I would see it as a kind of a seed investment by CFG holders, which will pay back when Anemoy’s pools are in the hundreds of millions, later billions, and we reintroduce protocol fees step by step. A clear exception, not the rule. The Centrifuge DAO can reapply protocol fees at any time, and I’ll be the first CFG holder asking for it when it is time.

[sirj]

I took a look at the LTF pool as well to see how much fees have been paid to date and here is the estimated breakdown:

Total pending fees	Total paid fees	Protcol Fee Paid	Protcol Fee Pending	Mgmt Fee Paid	Mgmt Fee Pending
2,244 USDC	25,447 USDC	12,723 USDC	1,122 USDC	12,723 USDC	1,122 USDC

[theoyster]

I support this proposal as it represents a strategic step toward expanding Centrifuge’s institutional adoption. The partnership with Janus Henderson Investors could serve as a significant catalyst for bringing more traditional finance players into the Centrifuge ecosystem.

While the protocol fee reduction from 7.5bp to 0bp means forgoing some immediate revenue, the potential long-term benefits of attracting institutional-grade partners like JHI outweigh this modest fee impact. The enhanced credibility from JHI’s involvement and their Moody’s double A rating could pave the way for additional institutional partnerships.

The restructuring of fees appears well-reasoned, particularly as it aligns with traditional finance expectations while maintaining overall cost neutrality for users. This kind of flexibility in fee structure may prove crucial for securing future strategic partnerships.

I believe this proposal effectively balances immediate protocol revenue considerations with the broader strategic goal of expanding Centrifuge’s institutional adoption and market presence. As Centrifuge’s AUM grows significantly through these institutional partnerships, the DAO retains the flexibility to reassess and potentially reintroduce protocol fees at a more opportune time

Regards,

TheOyster

[Rhano]

CP143 has been submitted to GitHub so the proposal is now final.

cps/CP143.md

Council Motion 111 for CP143 has also just been submitted to the council. If passed in the council, this will become Referendum 70 for all CFG token holders to vote on.

The vote will be open for 900 blocks (3 hours).

[Rhano]

Council Motion 111 just passed in the council. Referendum 70 is now open for 3 hours for all CFG token holders to vote on!

Please vote here: CP143: Change fee for Anemoy LTF

[Rhano]

Referendum 70 for CP143 has passed and the changes have come into effect.

[jagx7]

why not have a grace period for delayed fees? 12 months; then fees kick in… Seems like any project that receives funding should have a minimum fee to recover seed money provided by the CFG community. All parties should have an interest in seeing CFG retain and grow as a utiltiy token. And without economics to CFG its value as a utility token is questionable.

[ImdioR]

Good day Jagx7
The CFG Token holders can initiate a proposal to set the fee for the JH Anemoy Pool at any time.
I do agree with you that all the parties (CFG token holders, CFG DAO, Issuers) should have an interest in seeing the growth of CFG value.

However, we should not forget that for some pools the earning margin is super low and could be scaled only with the TVL growth.
If JH Anemoy grows in TVL, that will be a win-win situation not only for the Issuer of the pool, but also for CFG Dao and CFG token holders.

[jagx7]

I would need some assistance (other than from Grok) for a proposal. I would think we all have the same objective to see CFG flourish and capture the value of the platform so it can grow and become a reliable and trustworthy brand.

Here is a first cut for discussion purposes and all numbers subject to change based on discussions and agreement by the community. Also the fees once collected would go 70% to burn or yield for CFG holders and 30% for ongoing development, maintenance, and other community uses. By way of background, I’m a CFA, 30 years investment experience, assistant PM for $3B+ in CLO/CBOs for several years, and extensive buy side expertise across the capital structure including bonds, bank loans, distressed debt, activist short selling, and private equity.

Centrifuge.io Fee Structure Proposal for Community Voting

Objective:
Implement a sustainable, transparent, and competitive fee structure for Centrifuge.io that supports platform growth, incentivizes participation from small to institutional players, and aligns with the mission to democratize access to tokenized real-world assets (RWAs).

Proposed Fee Structure

1. Platform Fee

The platform fee is charged to asset originators or pool managers for using Centrifuge’s infrastructure to tokenize and manage RWA pools. It’s an annual percentage of the pool’s value, billed monthly, and varies by pool size and risk rating (A, B, C, Not Rated). Pools under $10M are free to encourage adoption, while larger pools have tiered fees to reflect economies of scale. Defaulted pool fees are higher to cover risk and are noted in a footnote for clarity.

Platform Fee Tiers (Annual % of Pool Value):

Pool Size (USD)	Rating A	Rating B	Rating C	Not Rated
< $10M (Free Tier)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
$10M - $50M	0.50%	0.75%	1.00%	1.25%
$50M - $250M	0.40%	0.60%	0.80%	1.00%
$250M - $500M	0.30%	0.45%	0.60%	0.75%
> $500M	0.20%	0.30%	0.40%	0.50%

Footnote on Defaulted Pools:
For pools classified as defaulted (e.g., non-performing loans), the platform fee is:

• $10M - $50M: 2.00%
• $50M - $250M: 1.50%
• $250M - $500M: 1.00%
• $500M: 0.75%
  Defaulted pools under $10M remain free to support recovery efforts.

Key Features:

• Free Tier (< $10M): Enables SMEs and new originators to join without cost barriers, aligning with Centrifuge’s mission to lower capital costs for smaller players (e.g., 97% cost savings vs. traditional securitization, as seen in BlockTower’s $220M fund).
• Rating-Based Pricing: Lower fees for high-quality pools (Rating A, e.g., Janus Henderson’s AA+f/S1+ rated fund) incentivize premium assets. Higher fees for riskier pools (C, Not Rated, Default= Defaulted) cover due diligence and risk management costs.
• Scalability: Fees decrease with pool size, attracting institutional players while ensuring revenue for platform maintenance, governance, and ecosystem growth.
• Transparency: Fees are encoded in Tinlake smart contracts and displayed on the Centrifuge dashboard for clarity.

Example Calculation:

• $20M pool, Rating B: 0.75% × $20M = $150,000/year (~$12,500/month).
• $300M pool, Rating A: 0.30% × $300M = $900,000/year (~$75,000/month).
• $15M defaulted pool: 2.00% × $15M = $300,000/year (~$25,000/month).

2. Exit/Transfer Fee

Charged to investors when selling or withdrawing funds from a pool, covering blockchain transaction costs (e.g., CFG fees on Polkadot) and platform processing.

• Fee: 0.25% of the transaction value.
• Minimum: $50 per transaction.
• Maximum: $5,000 per transaction.

Key Features:

• Low and Predictable: At 0.25%, it’s competitive with DeFi platforms and far below traditional finance (e.g., Fidelity’s bond trading fees).
• Caps for Fairness: The $50 minimum ensures small transactions cover costs, while the $5,000 cap protects large investors, making Centrifuge attractive for institutional funds.
• Applicability: Applies to both sales (e.g., token transfers) and redemptions.

Example Calculation:

• Withdraw $100,000: 0.25% × $100,000 = $250.
• Withdraw $5,000: 0.25% × $5,000 = $12.50, but minimum applies, so $50.
• Withdraw $10M: 0.25% × $10M = $25,000, but cap applies, so $5,000.

3. Community Incentives

To align with Centrifuge’s decentralized governance and CFG token utility, the following incentives are proposed:

• CFG Staking Discount: Pools staking CFG tokens (e.g., for governance or liquidity) receive a 10% discount on platform fees (e.g., 0.50% becomes 0.45% for Rating A, $10M-$50M).
• Governance Participation Bonus: Originators or investors participating in Centrifuge governance (e.g., voting on proposals) receive a one-time 5% fee rebate on their next transaction.
• Referral Program: Originators referring new pools receive a 0.1% fee credit for one year, capped at $10,000, to grow the ecosystem.
• Revenue Allocation: 50% of fee revenue funds platform development, 30% supports CFG liquidity pools, and 20% is distributed to governance participants as CFG rewards.

Rationale: These incentives leverage CFG’s role in governance, staking, and transaction fees, encouraging community engagement and ecosystem growth while maintaining financial sustainability.

Why Vote for This Proposal?

• Community-Centric Design:
  • Free tier for small pools supports SMEs, aligning with Centrifuge’s mission to democratize finance.
  • CFG-based incentives reward token holders and governance participants, strengthening decentralization.
  • Transparent fee display and smart contract enforcement build trust.
• Competitive and Sustainable:
  • Fees are lower than traditional finance (e.g., 3–5% securitization costs) and competitive with DeFi platforms like Maple or TrueFi, ensuring Centrifuge remains attractive.
  • Tiered pricing and risk-based adjustments balance accessibility with risk management, covering costs like blockchain fees and default recovery (e.g., $6M in overdue loans).
  • Revenue supports platform growth, liquidity, and community rewards, ensuring long-term viability.
• Scalable for All Stakeholders:
  • Small originators benefit from the free tier, while institutional players (e.g., BlockTower, Janus Henderson) enjoy low fees for large, high-quality pools.
  • Investors face predictable, capped exit fees, encouraging participation across retail and institutional users.
  • Rating-based fees incentivize high-quality assets, enhancing platform reputation.
• Risk Management:
  • Higher fees for defaulted and risky pools cover increased due diligence and recovery costs, protecting the ecosystem from losses (e.g., defaulted loans reported in 2024).
  • Footnote for defaulted fees simplifies the structure while maintaining transparency.
• Future-Proofed:
  • Dynamic fee adjustments can respond to network conditions (e.g., Polkadot gas fees) or market volatility (CFG price ~$0.13–$0.15 in April 2025).
  • Community governance can propose fee updates, ensuring adaptability to regulatory or market changes.

Implementation Plan

• Smart Contract Integration: Encode fees into CFG smart contracts for automatic collection and transparency.
• Dashboard Updates: Display fees and incentives on Centrifuge’s interface, with a fee calculator for originators and investors.
• Community Feedback: Host a 14-day discussion period on Centrifuge’s governance forum to gather input before final voting.
• Pilot Phase: Test the fee structure with select pools (e.g., one per tier) for 3 months, reporting revenue and user feedback to the community.
• Full Rollout: Deploy across all pools post-pilot, with ongoing monitoring via governance.

Addressing Potential Concerns

• Fee Affordability: The free tier and low base fees ensure accessibility. Incentives like staking discounts further reduce costs for active community members.
• Complexity: The tiered structure is simplified with a clear table and footnote, and the dashboard calculator aids understanding.
• Defaulted Pool Fees: Higher fees (0.75%–2.00%) are justified by increased costs (e.g., legal recovery) but capped to avoid deterring recovery efforts.
• Revenue Use: Allocating 50% to development and 50% to community rewards ensures fairness and growth, with governance oversight to prevent misuse.

Voting Summary

Proposal: Adopt a tiered platform fee (0.00%–1.25%, with defaulted fees 0.75%–2.00% in a footnote) and a 0.25% exit/transfer fee ($50 min, $5,000 max), with CFG-based incentives for staking, governance, and referrals.
Benefits: Supports SMEs, attracts institutions, rewards community participation, and ensures sustainability.
Implementation: Smart contract integration, dashboard updates, 14-day feedback, 3-month pilot, full rollout.
Vote: Approve to strengthen Centrifuge’s ecosystem, enhance transparency, and drive adoption.

A modification of above could be to convert the platform fee into a % of the RWA yield. That way a pool with a low yielding 1st position would pay lesss than a higher yielding 2nd position; but they both pay 5% of the yield for example.