[FIP - 444] Add sGHO and USCC to sfrxUSD Strategies

Authors

Frax Core Team


Summary

This proposal seeks to expand sfrxUSD strategies by adding exposure to sGHO (with a $10M cap) and USCC (with a $20M cap). The objective is to enhance yield generation while maintaining diversification across DeFi-native and RWA-backed stablecoin strategies.


Background & Motivation

GHO is Aave’s native overcollateralized stablecoin, and sGHO represents its savings module, where users earn yield derived from GHO borrowing activity. Unlike external yield sources, sGHO yield is directly tied to Aave’s internal interest flows, making it a structurally sustainable and protocol-native yield source.

Integrating sGHO allows sfrxUSD to:

  • Capture Aave-native revenue streams
  • Align with one of the largest lending ecosystems in DeFi
  • Benefit from a rate-controlled yield mechanism governed by Aave

USCC is a tokenized fund designed to provide exposure to cash-equivalent and carry strategies, combining short-duration Treasuries and crypto basis trades. As introduced in prior governance (FIP-420), USCC can serve as a yield source aligned with Frax’s RWA expansion strategy.

Adding USCC enables:

  • Increased exposure to institutional-grade yield strategies
  • Diversification into offchain + hybrid carry opportunities
  • Alignment with Frax’s broader regulated asset framework

Together, these additions strengthen sfrxUSD’s position as a benchmark yield stablecoin, balancing DeFi-native and RWA-backed returns.


Proposal Details

1. sGHO Allocation

  • Asset: sGHO
  • Cap: $10,000,000
  • Strategy Type:
    • Direct allocation to sGHO (earning yield from GHO borrow rates)
  • Rationale:
    • Access to Aave-controlled yield (Savings GHO rate)
    • Exposure to Aave-native stablecoin economics
    • Simple and efficient integration via holding strategy

2. USCC Allocation

  • Asset: USCC
  • Cap: $20,000,000
  • Strategy Type:
    • Direct allocation to USCC
  • Rationale:
    • Exposure to RWA + crypto carry yield strategies
    • Complements existing assets like BUIDL / USTB
    • Expands sfrxUSD into institutional-grade yield sources

Risk Framework

  • All allocations represent maximum caps, not required deployment
  • Deployment will be gradual and opportunistic
  • Strategies must meet sfrxUSD benchmark yield requirements
  • Continuous monitoring of:
    • Smart contract risk (sGHO / Aave)
    • Counterparty and structure risk (USCC)
    • Liquidity and redemption conditions

Voting

  • For: Approve adding sGHO (up to $10M cap) and USCC (up to $20M cap) to sfrxUSD strategies.
  • Against: Do nothing.
1 Like

How will we measure revenue please?

Revenue is tracked transparently on-chain and aggregated in this dashboard: https://dune.com/stablescarab/frxusd

Also all underlying addresses are disclosed (Frax Facts) , so anyone can independently verify and reconstruct the revenue streams directly from on-chain data.

This dashboard is the current reference, with a more refined version in progress.

Thank you - is this the same dashboard that is used to track the 10% revenue share please?

This proposal is up for voting here: Snapshot

there is an error, 25m or 20m cap for uscc? @nader.frax

1 Like

Covered the strategy analysis in the Convex thread. Here I want to focus on competitive positioning and governance dynamics.

Context that matters: ChainFundamentals data posted today on the Sky forum shows sUSDS captured the #1 position in stablecoin yield deposits, 37% market share, up from 19.6% YTD. sUSDS won that share by being the least volatile during the April 18–20 cascade (–10.2% drawdown vs. --52% for Aave stables). sfrxUSD is competing in this same space. Adding sGHO and USCC is the right move for yield diversification, but the real lesson from last week is that stability under stress matters as much as yield during calm. sfrxUSD needs to show that multi-strategy diversification reduces drawdown during the next stress event, not just improves yield in quiet markets.

On the vote: 109K For vs 5.4K Against, roughly 95/5. The 5% dissent is healthy. veFXS voting power is concentrated, and when governance passes with near-unanimity you need to verify whether that represents genuine distributed consensus or whale alignment.

Frax governance should publish a risk dashboard for sfrxUSD backing composition: what percentage of yield comes from each strategy, what the max drawdown scenarios look like per strategy, and how correlated the yield sources are during stress.

Overall, would vote for

-– Robby Greenfield | tokedex.org

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback. the correct number is $20m cap for USCC as it mentioned in the voting options.