Use the remaining 593,010 TRU allocated towards that use for a referral program to bring on new borrowers.
Pay 39,534 TRU to any borrower that refers another borrower that qualifies for and originates a loan of at least $500,000
Note: At the moment, we have a CRM w/ 56 existing and potential borrowers at varying onboarding stages. These 56 borrowers include borrowers who have already taken out loans, some actively onboarding, some we need to catch up with. While we can’t share that list publicly, we’ll do ‘scouts honor’ with borrowers so that if they introduce us to someone that (a) we have never spoken to (b) have on the list, but aren’t actively onboarding with, we will pay out the referral.
Background
We introduced the ‘borrower incentives ’ as a way to subsidize rates. However, with the introduction of the ‘rate model’ we are seeing lower base rates on average and the ‘borrower incentives’ are now overkill.
Existing borrowers have been the best source of new borrowers. Many of our repeat borrowers today come from introductions or recommendations from earlier borrowers. We’d like to give borrowers even more of a reason to incentive new TrueFi borrowers.
Motivation:
One of the top priorities right now is to increase utilization in the pools. Bringing on new borrowers is one way to continue doing this.
If this works and we can bring on 15 new borrowers via this program, we can consider expanding this program.
Specification:
For: You agree with bullets 1-3 above
Against: You disagree with 1-3 or would like to alter the proposal
Am I correct in assuming the incentive goes to the co. treasury of the organization the referrer represents instead of the individual ?
Would there be any value in doing an informal survey with existing borrowers in an attempt to quantify their level of interest in this type of incentive? In addition to engaging them in the process, I think participants would be compelled to help make the process successful ( actually make referrals ) if they feel some ownership for the process they helped create. In reality, if we do not don’t identify CCR’s as part of the incentive plan, we might introduce something ineffective. I think that risk justifies taking the extra time to identify their critical requirements instead of assuming we know best. I’m not proposing a full blown statistically correct survey. I think something more qualitative ( a quick discussion that the business development people could have in the normal flow of their discussions with borrowers ) would suffice. In reality, they might have ideas which would result in an even better incentive strategy that would benefit both process owners. I just think we are missing a key step in the process if we fail to do this.
I reviewed the previous proposal and didn’t see anything. If this has already been addressed somewhere else, my apologies. Feel free to add this to the recycle bin and I will compensate you 1 Tru for your wasted time *
Have a great day!
concurrent with your submission of a 50 page document ( and the associated transaction fees ) quantifying your eligibility for the above mentioned compensation. Now I know I’m wasting your time.
I agree with the proposal but I believe we should pay them in stkTRU so that there is more ecosystem buy-in and a little bit more friction for them to sell them. They should receive their tokens upon loan repayment not origination…we should not be inadvertently incentivizing people to refer deadbeat borrowers.
