BIP 12: Badger Emissions Week 4

Category: Emissions
Scope: Week 4 Emissions Voting
Status: Accepted


With week 3 Badger emissions coming to an end tomorrow December 24th at 1pm EST, we need to decide if the emissions should change for week 4.


In week 3 we planned on launching 2 additional vaults and allocated 90,000 $BADGER in emissions which didn’t happen. So it was somewhat of an unplanned emissions cut. This along with $BADGER token price decrease the last 7 days has given us good data points around what emissions are needed for each vault to maintain certain TVL.

I propose we increase emissions to 623,750 $BADGER for this week to ensure vaults are competitive and there is room to incentivize additional vaults. The extra 20k $BADGER over weeks 1 & 2 doesn’t change much since we reduced last weeks by 90,000.

A data point that jumped out at me was around the UNI LP vault. There was a decrease of 30%+ in liquidity while Bitcoin price start to move upwards quickly. This suggests that users wanted to remove IL exposure and capture BTC upside by exiting the vault. Those same folks deposited their Badger into the Badger only vault. This vault is only a few hundred % difference in APY while removing IL risk.

I think we should increase the difference in emissions between LP vaults vs (Badger only) to allow for higher LP APY to make up for additional risk.

Also, I think we maintain the same CRV vault emissions as last week since most are now in the 40-50% APY range while ensuring the wbtc/eth SLP vault is in line with those as well. I can see that vault attracted more TVL then the individual CRV vaults so we need to ensure APY is attractive still when the pool size is larger.

Finally, this should be the last week of $BADGER only emissions which when $DIGG is released will allow us to reduce $BADGER emissions while maintaining APY’s on a schedule to extend LM.

Week 3 emissions were as follows;

Total $BADGER 513,750


  • renbtcCRV — 83,437.5 $BADGER
  • sbtcCRV — 83,437.5 $BADGER
  • tbtcCRV — 83,437.5 $BADGER
  • Badger — 70,000 $BADGER
  • (NEW) wBTC/ETH Sushiswap LP — 0 $BADGER
  • Badger <>wBTC Uniswap LP — 110,000 $BADGER
  • (NEW) Badger <>wBTC Sushiswap LP— 0 $BADGER

Super Sett

  • Harvest renbtc CRV —83,437.5 $BADGER

I propose for week 4 emissions;

Total $BADGER 623,750


  • renbtcCRV — 83,437.5 $BADGER
  • sbtcCRV — 83,437.5 $BADGER
  • tbtcCRV — 83,437.5 $BADGER
  • Badger — 50,000 $BADGER
  • (NEW) wBTC/ETH Sushiswap LP — 80,000 $BADGER
  • Badger <>wBTC Uniswap LP — 90,000 $BADGER
  • (NEW) Badger <>wBTC Sushiswap LP— 70,000 $BADGER

Super Sett

  • Harvest renbtc CRV —83,437.5 $BADGER


If you are in support of this proposal vote “Yes”; if you don’t support this proposal vote “No.”

All voting will end by 11am EST December 24th to give the operations team enough time to implement for week 4.

  • For
  • Against

0 voters


I’m for this, and agree that IL is one of the reasons that led people towards the Badger only vault instead of the UNI LP vault.


I think an unmentioned reason is the cut in $DIGG airdrop being proposed from people who sell $badger.

People are less likely to sell some of their $badger for $wbtc to participate in the UNI LP vault if it’s going to result in them receiving less $digg.

I think that proposal needs to be carefully looked at if one of the main goals of the Badger community is to have lots of liquidity for the Badger-WBTC pair.


Absolutely agree LP’s should be getting the lions share of the rewards compared to Badger only.

I LP and stake my rewards get rolled into stake anyway so it’s a win win for those invested most in project.


I think the emissions proposed on above make sense and I’ve voted yes. Incentivizing greater liquidity for BADGER<>wBTC over the just BADGER sett makes sense based on the utility it provides.

I noticed in the Post DIGG emissions thread that it’s been proposed to have DIGG rewards for the DIGG sett be equal to about 60% of the emissions for the DIGG<>wBTC setts and I’m wondering if this is something we need to reexamine. In my mind, the DIGG<>wBTC pools are one of if not the most important features that will stabilize DIGG price.

Regardless of what is decided I will be LPing the sushi pool, but even were I planning on only depositing in the DIGG vault I believe it would be most beneficial overall to maximize the attractiveness of LPing DIGG<>wBTC

Cheers all, loving the collaboration going on!


I vote for, good proposal, I think it won’t harm $badger and will additionally reward LPs who are important for protocol growth.


I agree about incentivizing bdager/wbtc lp pool. I think compounding your yield is a sexy selling point for people not to just dump what they earn imo. If there are 90k extra tokens that weren’t doled out we should consider giving a great bonus for LP pool and a good bonus to badger pool to incentive the right moves.

1 Like

I agree. Cant we do a pre-vote or something on the digg airdrop that switching setts does not effect the digg airdrop?

I am also in support. I wonder if we need a badger<>digg pool, the sell pressure may ease a bit too


Will the sushi pools go live soon? Beacause if not this proposal means a cut to the Wbtc/Badger pool rewards, while u propose to incentivice the LP vaults.

While i agree on the increased rewards for badger/wbtc lp’s, i cant see the reason for the sushi wbtc/eth pool.

I voted against, because i feel 80,000 $BADGER for wBTC-ETH pool is too much considering they dont need to be in $BADGER at all.

People providing liquidity in Badger-wBTC getting less than people LP`ing wBTC-ETH seems very unfair. (sushiswap)


Agreed. Maybe I missed something, but why are we even incentivising the wBTC/ETH pool in the first place?

Giving higher rewards to LPs who face IL makes sense to me, but I would not cut again Badger rewards for the Badger sett. The fact that incentives do not only depend on the percentage of the value locked one owns, but also on the time one has been staking is a huge penalisation if Badger stakers were to switch pools now. I believe the 90k $BADGER that weren’t awarded last week allow to keep $BADGER rewards for the Badger sett constant while increasing them for riskier setts.


I think the current incentive proposed for wBTC<>ETH is fine given it’s only one week of emissions.

As @Spadaboom mentioned it is likely to be one of the higher TVL pools given the relative risk/reward of LPing that pool in general (positive correlation). If the TVL is highest then the APY per dollar locked will be lower, which I believe is why higher emissions for that pool were proposed.

All of this said, and to present the opposing case, we should ask ourselves what the utility of incentivizing wBTC<>ETH is to our specific purposes? Does it create more liquidity for BADGER and DIGG? Does it open up new potential strategies?

Badger governance will earn a percentage of profit from all strategies, so it does stand to reason that we want to incentivize as much liquidity as possible, but it’s important to think about whether the early emissions of BADGER to that pool will incentivize people to lock up value for an extended period of time, our desired outcome.



Missing Super Sett on week 4 proposal, but total lines up if the 83,437.5 is indeed allocated towards it.

Super Sett

  • Harvest renbtc CRV —83,437.5 $BADGER

There’s 311 million in the WBTC-ETH pair on Sushi already. There is no need to incentive it, unless Sushi is requiring we do for some reason.


Agree with this proposal, Lp holders will reduce due to movement in BTC price and this will affect Badger proce.

1 Like

Why would they take additional risk to put it on our contracts?


Fixed i. Thanks Vipes

1 Like

Great reasoning in the proposal and this is why I voted yes.

I also would love to participate more in the Badger <>wBTC Uniswap LP but I am affraid to unstake my a portion of my $BADGER in order to move them to the LP, because I don’t want to lose my multiplier and my potential $DIGG emissions.

What I am currently doing is participating in the LP with the $BADGER rewards I can withdraw - I send them to Uniswap, add wBTC and stake again. I have suffered from IL but I have longer time-frame vision, I believe in Badger and I think that in longer time frames, that will revert. However I am also in agreement that those who provide liquidity are taking additional risk that needs to be compensated by larger $BADGER allocation (and potential $DIGG starting next week).

1 Like

Are you talking about wbtc-eth slp holders?

why do we want them to put it on our contracts? there’s already 311m liquidity. i’m just not seeing the benefit to further incentivizing it. what am i missing?


it will be interesting to see if people move their uni lp to sushi, i assume the boosts will keep long term participants rooted but new comers may end up moving over from uniswap. not sure what the goal is, if we want to increase the sushi pool but not cannibalize the uni pool, maybe we should have extra boost this week for LPs on uniswap