This is exactly the kind of change that can give Prime a second life. I fully support the direction of this redesign — aligning rewards more tightly with actual capital usage is the right move and addresses one of the core inefficiencies in the current model.
As a follow-up, I’d suggest extending this direction by building on the concept of efficiency more explicitly.
In a previous proposal, I introduced the idea of a Prime Efficiency Ratio (PER). Measuring How Effectively Prime Tokens Are Used as a way to measure how effectively Prime is being used relative to capital activity. I think this redesign creates the perfect foundation to make that concept truly useful in practice.
The idea would be to:
- keep the redesigned reward function as the source of truth
- and expose an explicit efficiency metric derived from it (i.e. how well a user balances stake vs borrow/supply)
This would add a missing layer to the system:
- Clarity — users understand why their rewards look the way they do
- Actionability — clear signals on how to improve efficiency instead of trial and error
- Better alignment — users are guided toward optimal behavior without additional protocol complexity
Importantly, this metric should remain non-invasive :
- no direct impact on rewards
- no added complexity in the core logic
- purely a derived, analytical layer (UI / dashboards)
This creates a clean separation:
- the redesign defines how rewards are distributed
- PER defines how efficiently a user is participating in that system
I believe combining these two layers would significantly improve both the usability and the effectiveness of Prime.