@waqarmmirza and @Spaydh - some governance archival work for you guys 
Iām wondering if this is the idea being referenced (this is from the text of Proposal #72) (emphasis mine).
Key Attributes of a Consumer Chain
- Majority of gas fees go to developer DAO: On this type of consumer chain, gas fees are paid in Atoms. For example, 25% of the gas fees are sent to the Cosmos Hub validators and delegators for securing the chain, and the remaining 75% go to a DAO supporting the development of the consumer chain.
I donāt think this was intended as a ārequirementā of consumer chains so much as a speculation about what a consumer chain might be, so that people had the context to vote on an ICS-related proposal before many of the core features had been designed or developed (May 2022).
There was also something in the appendix text of Proposal #187:
How should validators think about revenues and costs?
There are multiple ways a consumer chain could remunerate the Cosmos Hub validators:
Transaction fees: By default, 25% of the consumer chain fees will be distributed to the provider chain. This number can be set differently for each consumer chain. Note that validators also have control over the minimum fee they are willing to receive.
Token inflation: If the consumer chain has a token, they can allocate a portion of the inflation to the Cosmos Hub validators and delegators (in other words, ācontinuous airdropsā).
Application fees: If the consumer chain doesnāt have a token, a percentage of the swap fees, usage fees etc. can be distributed to the provider chain as well.
But this was part of the FAQ/discussion, not what was voted on.
As far as I know, Neutronās proposed compensation scheme is better than anything thatās come up in Hub discussion. A 25% share of gas fees (including a deflationary asset) and 25% of the MEV revenue and a genesis allocation feels pretty sweet to me. Iām looking forward to hearing more about the genesis allocation when itās ready to share!