I have been helping spearhead initiatives with other protocols and their governance to try to drive towards providing additional utility for bBADGER & bDIGG within DeFi.
With the upcoming “Badger Boost” which replaces the current time based multiplier. The stake ratio will be used to determine the new “Badger Boost” multiplier based on your value relative to the community, refer to BIP 24 for more details.
My question and ask is to ensure the stake ratio calculation accounts for bBADGER & bDIGG that have been utilised in other protocols such as Bancor or Cream.
It would be a real shame to penalise badgers who have been working hard to deepen bBADGER & bDIGG liquidity and functionality. I am aware that I am forgoing the current multiplier given I have un-staked my bBADGER but backing these initiatives to ensure they become established parts of the ecosystem is more important for the greater mission.
Hey, I appreciate you posting this and tagging me. Perhaps you would have better visibility posting in Discord as well (although topics get lost easily in real time chats).
I believe that your concern is addressed in BIP 24. Unfortunately the way is written is not clear enough, so I might be wrong.
The way I understand it is that there will be “whitelisted locations” where bDIGG, bBADGER may be held, staked, or deposited. I also understand that all the proposals included in BIP 24 work together with the intention of improved composability, so you can USE your bBADGER and bDIGG without missing out on rewards or staking bonus.
So as long as you are holding / using your bBADGER and bDIGG in those “whitelisted locations” it should be taken into consideration for Badger boost. Not sure what the mechanism to request a location to be “whitelisted” will be, but BIP 24 implies it would need to be done via a future BIP so this is something to consider as well.
Perhaps you would have better visibility posting in Discord as well (although topics get lost easily in real time chats).
Yeah I was on the fence since this is part support but also part alignment to our mission.
So as long as you are holding / using your bBADGER and bDIGG in those “whitelisted locations” it should be taken into consideration for Badger boost. Not sure what the mechanism to request a location to be “whitelisted” will be, but BIP 24 implies it would need to be done via a future BIP so this is something to consider as well.
Thank you for taking the time to bring this information to light and clarifying it for me, I remember hearing about the “white listed locations” in passing but was not certain.
It would be ideal if this whitelist is managed proactively to encourage composability building behaviours within the community when these new opportunities arise. Perhaps the badger council could take on the responsibility of proposing updates to the list given this aligns with their influence on upcoming partnerships for the dao.