Because Status Network will offer gasless transactions for users at scale, it will mostly not get revenues from sequencing fees (except when users pay premium gas).
The first and initially most important source of revenue will come from capturing a commission on the yield generated by rehypothecating assets deposited in the L1 bridge contract, starting with ETH and DAI.
source: https://excalidraw.com/#json=1s9Uyr2jr6vckWl9giqmD,kGFx1VBlRsRl_GKC48l83w
We took inspiration from Blast’s native yield architecture, with some explicit choices about yield sources: Lido for ETH through stETH and Maker for DAI through sDAI.
In the future we could also add more YieldProviders to diversify the source of yield, but the main issue is the added significant risk for the potentially small incremental gain in yield. As an example, if we decide to increase the stablecoin yield by adding Ethena, and Ethena has issues (smart contract bug or depegging), then the native USD asset on the L2 would become undercollateralized.
One way to add higher yield would be to create other native assets that are explicitly more risky and are backed by multiple yield-bearing assets. For example a snETH (for Status Network) on the L2 that would be backed by a mix of multiple ETH-based LSTs and LRTs. This would be managed in a separate vault independent from the native yield bridge so that if one of those LSTs depegs, the native ETH on Status Network would not be affected.
This is the larger high-level system including other ETH and stablecoin derivatives:
.png)
source: https://excalidraw.com/#json=grWqbnG7UWAOXDEVz2yPG,vGzsfB18lyOxq_UQoqP0AQ
And this is a zoom on the native apps (just for reference, not necessary for the yield-bearing bridge understanding):
.png)