Auto-invest 100% $Badger rewards

  1. Provide a high-level overview of the BIP.
  2. Provide low-level details of the BIP.
  3. Business and technical requirements of the implementation of the proposal.

Hi all,

First of all, congratulations to all involved in this great project. I feel a sense of community that doesn’t come by in every project. I’m just a small holder, but I would like to raise an improvement proposal on behalf of other small bagholders. I have the feeling that I’m not the first one, but maybe this is already picked up in the roadmap and this post can be neglected. I feel this is of importance for a lot of other small bag holders gas-wise.

Name: Proposal - Auto stake your to be claimed (50%) $BADGER Rewards so that you re-invest 100% of the rewards

High-level Scope: When staking, 50% automatically is re-invested currently, but I personally would like to automatically re-invest the other 50% as well. Due to I have a small bag, it becomes more attractive for me to not stake it for weeks because of the high gas fees compared to my invested amount, and than stake it.

Low-level: I think we can solve this with an elegant solution in the dashboard:
A optional tick box next to/inside (UX has to look into this) the “claim your rewards” button so users that do not want to autostake the 50% are not impacted and the users that do want this strategy have an additional strategy at hand.

Business requirement: As a user, I want to be able to automatically re-invest 100% when staking

Technical implementation: Tbd

Provide a new re-invest staking strategy for small bagholders

Sett Vault, Staking

Hope to hear from you all.
Kind regards,


@jorritk thanks for putting this together. Please edit it to fit the format of our BIP templates. Until then, I will move this to the general category as it does not meet the criteria for a proposal.

1 Like

i hope this goes through. Ive been thinking about it too. its very expensive to claim and stake the earned rewards again. This would be a big help for small time badger hodler like me.


I edited the post to fit the template. Is there someone here that can help with the technical implementation description? I lack this knowledge unfortunately from the user perspective.

1 Like

I’m also a small bag holder and fully support this idea. Gas fees are high AF for small transactions.

1 Like

Doesn’t matter if you have 1 or 1000 it’s still expensive!


Agreed, as just a normal person I can hardly do anything on the Ethereum network without it being painfully expensive now, which is such a shame as last year I was going round trying everything on defi and now it’s just not worth it.

Defo a plus 1 for 100% auto staking option

1 Like

that is a really important feature that Harvest.Finance has that Badger.Finance doesnt have also it would be good to have the clear number on the profit sharing etc.

1 Like
  • Stay at 50% reinvest
  • Optional 100% reinvest
  • Move all to 100% reinvest

0 voters

I was originally one of the people who felt 100% autocompounding was better until I thought about the purpose behind the mechanics. While I’d appreciate hearing from development on this, I actually wrote about this in my content piece.

Here’s an excerpt on that autocompounding mechanism:

While Badger’s token staking vault does draw some comparisons to Harvest Finance’s auto-compounding FARM staking vault, Badger’s approach is arguably better. While still accumulating a percentage of rewards from all the Badger Setts, the Badger staking vault instead distributes only about half of the rewards back to the underlying LP (liquidity provider) position for auto-compounding. The rest it distributes as claimable rewards, meaning you have to pay gas fees in Ethereum (ETH) to claim. Harvest simply auto-compounds the entirety of your stake, meaning you only have to pay gas when you claim the whole deposit. All your rewards auto-compound, meaning you arguably earn more efficient yield. One might consider this a design flaw, but herein lies the brilliance and balance of Badger’s system.
Over time, your stake will earn a multiplier for remaining in the Sett. This means that the longer your Badger or other LP position is staked, the better the return will be for your deposit. Rather than having to decide whether to claim the entirety of your rewards and reset that multiplier or risk taking no profits, you can simply claim a portion of your rewards without unstaking. This also gives you the flexibility of deciding whether you want to just claim some rewards, such as for trading, or put them all directly back into the Badger Sett to begin earning multipliers on the newly deposited portion.
When you think about the purpose of the Badger staking system and how it impacts liquidity providers (LPs) in how they make their staking vs unstaking, buying vs selling decisions, it’s no wonder how quickly Badger’s governance token has risen in value.

I think we should keep it how it is. It sounds more convenient, but I think we need to examine the purpose of the mechanism as-is first.

1 Like

I’m not sure how this is all that different than what you can do with FARM’s autocompounding vault. If I want to take profit, all I have to do is unstake a portion of my FARM tokens from the autocompounding vault. The remainder will continue to compound. Functionally, you should have the same degree of personal agency in your choices with either product.


It would need to be developed as you say and how its been done successfully in the past for sure.


Hi @DeFiFry very interesting to hear a different perspective on the proposal.

If you read my proposal, I don’t think it is fully contradicting the mechanism. If I may quote you:
“you can simply claim a portion of your rewards without unstaking. This also gives you the flexibility of deciding whether you want to just claim some rewards”

Next to the point @KW710 is making, the flexibility part is still intact, because the flexibility of unticking the box is in the proposal itself. Or maybe I’m missing the point you tried to make.

We understand each other. I personally would love 100% autocompounding if there were flexible withdrawal options. I just have the feeling that there is a reason it was built the way it was, and I would like to hear reasoning from development speaking to that to better make an informed decision. Changing a core smart contract without a single voice of dissent, it just gives me some pause.


i agree in the logical sense of 100% auto-compounding not being different and that it is definitely more gas efficient but unstaking has a different psychological effect than claiming rewards and staking them for yourself. we want our badgers to interact with ethereum while earning yield on their $btc. thoughts? @DeFiFry

I suppose how users think about it would depend on the size of their investment. Obviously claiming a few Badger isn’t worth it gas-wise compared to claiming tens or hundreds. So larger deposits you’re claiming more frequently, as it makes sense more often to either claim to sell or reinvest in Badger Staking Sett. You could argue that’s a positive or negative psychologically. Are you think about all the unnecessary gas you’re paying, or how much money you’re making? You could argue either thought becomes more recurrent.

My perspective is generally what’s the safest, most efficient way to generate the highest yield. I would argue that’s 100% autocompounding with the ability to withdraw a portion of my stake. However, if that somehow translates in a less-safe smart contract or a psychological component that actually inhibits long term trust and growth, well that’s the issue for me.


Is there a way to make this a wallet signature action rather than a true on-chain transaction then? Basically have your cake and eat it too as far as the psychological effect of unstaking and staking vs the gas savings achieved through autocompounding vaults?


@DeFiFrog I see my post gained some positive traction and votes. What does it take to get the team involved or get this proposal to the next level? Thanks a lot!

@DeFiFrog @jonto @Spadaboom


1 Like