# Future directions for Idle Protocol and definition of a Community Roadmap

**URL:** <https://gov.pareto.credit/t/future-directions-for-idle-protocol-and-definition-of-a-community-roadmap/168>\
**Category:** 🧩 Protocol & DAO\
**Created:** [January 6, 2021, 9:25pm UTC](https://gov.pareto.credit/t/future-directions-for-idle-protocol-and-definition-of-a-community-roadmap/168 "2021-01-06T21:25:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Teo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/gov.pareto.credit/teo/32/1261_2.png) [@Teo](https://gov.pareto.credit/u/Teo)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2021, 6:59pm UTC](https://gov.pareto.credit/t/future-directions-for-idle-protocol-and-definition-of-a-community-roadmap/168/15 "2021-01-27T18:59:17Z")

</div>

@unicorn re direct fiat on-ramp: as William said, there hasn’t been a high volume for fiat on-ramps. If we look at Ramp (the one with the most volume in Idle), we had ~ $50k volume since May 2020, and most of it was during the initial 0% fees promo we’ve done with Ramp. That said, it shows us that audience is not currently oriented to fiat onramps (and that’s why we included it as _Low User Value_).

However, I believe we can spin another test with fiat onramps with the direct deposit – I’m looking if we can partner up with a fiat-onramp to provide that without having a heavy burden on Idle’s development side (partners should directly interact with Idle contracts or have an idleTokens reserve for their customers).

* * *

@nrgskill great points!

Fully agree on (1), ETH would be one of the top priority considering all benefits that bring with it. For reference, there’s a [discussion about that here](https://gov.pareto.credit/t/adding-eth-asset-with-highest-yield/164).

On (2), automated harvesting would likely be for accrued gov tokens (excluding IDLE), but I see what you’re saying on the user profile for that specific automation – I think this possible downside can be dampened if our community agrees to give another usage to IDLE.

And this leads me to (3) and (4) topic, which has been discussed [here](https://gov.pareto.credit/t/new-distribution-staking-model/153) and partly [here](https://gov.pareto.credit/t/staking-tranche-strategies-combined/186) (as a component of tranches strategy). I believe the trajectory that the governance is pushing for is clear, but there are some flaws we need to address before proceeding with that (eg, it’s a bit early to start fee sharing with stakers, as the treasury is still growing and part of it will be routed to the [Smart Treasury](https://gov.pareto.credit/t/iip-2-add-a-smart-treasury-to-idle/211), and fees shared would have a low impact on stakers’ return).

The reason why staking is _High Effort_, it’s because the CRV model (which has been discussed as a possible implementation) would require us to change the entire governance module for Idle, and it’d be a quite high effort task. Other staking models might fall into a different effort classification.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.pareto.credit/t/future-directions-for-idle-protocol-and-definition-of-a-community-roadmap/168)._