RFC #3 HeyAnon HUD Revenue and ANON Token Utility

2. RFC - Request for Comment
1

RFC #3 HeyAnon HUD Revenue and ANON Token Utility

Summary/Scope

Formalize how HeyAnon’s HUD-generated revenue (a fraction of referral fees across integrated platforms) is routed to benefit ANON token holders. This RFC is focused on generating value for token holders and presents multiple allocation options, outlines required contracts/modules, and proposes a rollout timeline.

Referral Revenue Sources: Hyperliquid, Axiom, Photon, gmgn, etc - will expand over time.

Reference

Main Objective

Motivation. Convert HUD referral revenue into durable value for ANON holders while supporting development and growth of Hey Anon DAO.

Benefits:

  • Deflationary pressure via buyback & burn.

  • Increasing per-token backing for staked/locked holders (xANON).

  • Predictable, game-resistant execution (TWAP/TWAMM).

  • Engagement loops (referrals, optional lottery).

  • Transparent, governable parameters.

Proposed Options - to be voted

  1. Buyback & Burn + Referrals

    • Split: 80% to TWAP buyback & burn, 20% to referrers.

    • Per-epoch caps; anti-MEV (TWAP/TWAMM); clear referral attribution + quality controls.

  2. xANON Staking with Flexible Locks

    • Stake ANON → mint xANON.

    • Revenue periodically tops up the backing, so backing per xANON increases up over time.

    • Cool-down: 24–48h after stake/unstake to reduce hop/MEV games.

  3. Timed Lock Model

    • Optional 2–3 month locks with multipliers for a larger share of the revenue/backing inflow.

    • Longer lock ⇒ higher multiplier; early-exit penalty (flows to treasury).

  4. Lottery Drip (small %)

    • Slice of revenue funds a weekly, provably fair lottery for stakers/lockers.

    • RNG: verifiable randomness (e.g., VRF).

    • Strict cap (e.g., ≤2–3% of revenue) to prioritize core value flows.

Discussion is open for the DAO to set:

Which option of the mentioned (or combinations) will be implemented.

  • Buyback/burn, referrals, xANON backing stream, locked multipliers, lottery.

  • Cool-down durations (24h–48h), lock terms (2–3 months) and multipliers.

  • Per-epoch caps and execution cadence (daily/weekly).

  • Referral tiers/quality scoring to curb sybil abuse.

  • Lottery allocation cap and eligibility (e.g., minimum stake/lock).

Contracts/Technical Requirements

Handled by HeyAnon Dev team.

  • BuybackEngine

    • TWAP/TWAMM execution against designated pools.

    • Price oracle safeguards; per-epoch notional & slippage caps.

    • Optional range orders / RFQ to reduce impact.

  • xANON Staking

    • ANON → xANON mint/burn; 24–48h cool-down.

    • Backing accounting, snapshotting, Merkle-based claims if needed.

  • Locker (Timed Locks)

    • 2–3 month lock terms; multiplier curve; penalty routing.

    • Non-transferable lock positions or NFT-escrowed positions (governance to choose).

  • Referral Module

    • On-chain/off-chain attribution registry; tiered rewards.

    • Payouts to users in ANON token (per governance).

  • Lottery Module (optional)

    • RNG/VRF integration; provably fair winner selection.

    • Eligibility filters (min stake/lock, no contracts unless whitelisted).

    • Strict budget cap; transparent draw cadence.

  • Merkle Distributor

    • Batched distributions to reduce gas; supports multi-chain claims.

Security & ops

  • Role gating: pauser, rate-limit admin, parameter governor (DAO).

  • Circuit breakers on execution (price deviation, venue downtime).

  • Streaming/epoch-based accounting → fewer MEV vectors.

  • Transparent subgraph/indexer for public dashboards.

Timeline

RFC publication on August 25, 2025.

  • Aug 25–31, 2025 : RFC open comment period on forum.

  • Aug 31 - Sept 2, 2025: Snapshot vote

Call for Community Feedback

We want your input before we lock parameters. Please comment with:

  1. Preferred option or split among: buyback/burn, referrals, xANON backing, timed locks, lottery (if any).

  2. Cool-down & lock terms (24–48h; 2 or 3 months; multiplier curve).

  3. Referral design (tiers, quality scoring, anti-sybil rules).

  4. Lottery: include in v1? cap at ≤2%? eligibility rules? draw frequency?

  5. Additional ideas or risks we missed.

3 Likes
2

upvoting for 1 / buyback and burn mechanism will be so much great for $ANON price and mcap .

3

number one most appealing to me, as a token holder - it makes the most sense.

I think some kind of lottery system could also be good for marketing, if it is possible to combine features from different options.

4

Id say a combination of 1 and 2. It just is a better look than having just 1 utility for anon holders “buyback and burn” for example. It gives marketing power of buyback and burn but also if people can stake it gives a bit of price stability and a solid floor.

5

I do believe that buyback and burn + staking should be both foreseen in order to increase token value and to give the opportunity to earn for holders. Lock terms 24 h. With best interest for longer staking. I don’t see the utility of a lottery. Referral fee by tiars. I personally try to connect the Anon performance to WAGMI dex and token in some way.

6

Option 1 is the only one with any appeals to me.

7

Existing options:

  • xANON staking w/ 24 hour lock
    or
  • Timed Lock Model (3 months) with multipliers for larger share of revenue paid in USDC or SOL

New ideas:

  • Stake anon with 24hr unstake period and receive USDC or SOL dividends w/ auto compound option
  • 50% buyback/burn 50% xANON or Dividends in USDC/SOL (this combines increasing EPS & total return through buybacks while giving investors cash/anon tokens without them having to realize capital gains). xANON or staking for dividends would have 24hr unlock periods. If dividends are chosen there should be an auto compound feature/button.
8

WAGMI → sWAGMI mechanics are the best.

Improvement:

Just slowly accumulate ANON in the treasury and burn it from the treasury at market price. This will improve WAGMI mechanics and help avoid market manipulation.

9

Option No 1 is the best but we need some sort of staking too

So I propose 80% for buybacks and burn and 20% for referrals and stakers!

10

im going with option one

11

for me without a doubt option 1

12

My proposal would be a mix of 1 and 2:

  • 60% buyback to xANON staker
  • 20% buyback burn
  • 20% to referrals
13

IMO option 1 buyback and burn

14

Option 1 sounds best to me.

I also think a split between option 1 and option 3 would be good. 80% to option one and 20% to option 3 with lock periods of 1,3,6 and 12 months.

Burnt and locked anon are the most bullish options suggested.

Lottery is the worst option followed by option 2.

15

Option 1 is ideal. it would be great to instead of having a fixed percentage split to having a dynamic percentage split that fluctuate according to some metrics, thus it’s able to be more adaptive. for example a limit boundary of 80%/20% but referees percentage could deviate within a 10% range according to the revenue being generated or any other metrics.