We haven’t forgot about you and details coming soon
1 Like
Wow it does really count to discuss on this forum! impressive.
To be fair I really think early contributors should be rewarded as they create value for the whole community — benevolent devs, CMs and influencers alike. As I pointed out, I also think that it’d make more sense to (1) use DAO treasury and (2) $BADGER for that purpose.
2 Likes
Great so this is 14.5% now ie. approximately 1000 DIGG in airdrop equivalent to ~$26m on first day?
1.75 root is good idea. If someone has 10 times as much funds invested as someone else they will get 3 times as much DIGG. Sounds fair to me. Speaking as someone who probably has more than most in this. Someone providing 10 times as much funds doesn’t provide 10 times as much value. The root reflects network value.
6 Likes
It seems that this concern is addressed here with the 1.75 root factor which keeps a root factor but that’s slightly less punitive than square roots.
e.g. if you earned 100 BADGER you’d score 13.9 instead of 10 (considering earned $BADGER is the only parameter for simplicity)
EDIT: I used the formula 100^(1/1.75). Could be wrong too.
1 Like
It’s not just about providing value, but also bearing risk and being rewarded for it. Underlying asset could collapse, and also the simple fact that a big position is mostly illiquid due to the low, current liquidity of BADGER.
2 Likes
Sounds great. I think he root idea is genius and maybe could have some implications in the wider world. Hopefully it will set a standard for airdrops going forward also.
1 Like
This sounds like good ratios! Good job team and everyone in the community involved!
No, there’s no minimum amount allotted per address.
Sybil is a factor in distributions that use root, as root disproportionately rewards the tiny addresses.
If you had 50 Badger and split them between 10 different addresses with the approach used in BIP 14, you wouldn’t gain any extra rewards.
If we were to use the root distribution without this adjustment, you would benefit significantly from this move.
Small stakers with less than 50 Badger Earned have the highest ratio of DIGG dropped per Badger earned.
It’s just the same ratio for the whole cluster of small stakers that’s based on the ratio that 50 Badger earners get.
It’s top-100, not top-10. The difference was used as an example when comparing linear distribution to 1.75 root.
I estimate that top-100 earners will get around 25% of the drop due to the introduction of Badger Stake Days and Stake Days/Rewards ratio.
3 Likes
Again, regarding the root factor, all it takes for it to be circumvented in a non sybil resistant project is for a whale to split their BADGER at the beginning of the mining process. How many people do you personally know who did this with 1INCH using dozens of addresses and got a filthy amount of money? I know a few. All it takes is a modest amount of clairvoyance. The root factor is just like quadratic voting: sounds good in practice, but is dogshit in anonymous environments. Either implement KYC (please don’t), or remove the root factor.
7 Likes
I agree with this. Whales take on a significant risk. The liquidity they provide is what gives a network a lot of it’s value. I agree that other users with less at stake also bring value to the network in other ways, but without whales, there is low liquidity and low value.
I think root 1.75 is too high. A bit of a haircut is OK to diversify distribution, but too much could lead to a bad result.
45% of the calculation for the proposed distribution already takes stickiness into account.
- Total Badger Rewards Earned (55%),
*** Badger Earned / Badger staked ratio (35%), and**
*** Badger tokens Staked Over time (10%)**
If whales are earning and dumping their Badger already, they’ll get less. If they are earning and continue to stake, they have shown commitment to the project and should be rewarded for that, and not take a 1.75 root haircut.
I propose this number is revised down to 1.25
2 Likes
whales gon dump this $digg on us regardless
I’d argue someone providing 10 times as much as someone else provides more than 3x as much value. You’re probably right that 10 times is not necessarily accurate, but discounting it down to 3x is a massive haircut for the liquidity they provide. Look at every shitcoin on CMC, they have no liquidity. If whales leave because they are ham fisted too much by a previously unannounced quadratic or root distribution, it will be problematic. The other issue is such distributions are so easy for savvy whales to foil. Simply provide liquidity through multiple accounts. In reality this doesn’t really solve anything other than piss off those that provide liquidity for the farm coin. No liquidity = no value.
Current Badger Liquidity:
- Uniswap Badger-WBTC -> 7.8M
- Sushi Badger-WBTC -> 1.2M
That’s only 9M!!! That’s nothing. If a few whales leave, slippage will be very high on Badger.
Team 1.25 root
Seems like a well-thought-out compromise with a fair distribution. As such, not everyone will be happy, but everyone should be content.
Thus is the nature of compromises.
Well done team - let’s do this!
1 Like
- Are whales dumping Badger on us?
- If whales dump $digg is it even a big issue, it’s a rebasing coin. Whales dump, we get more digg.
not exactly. and it’s (free) money man let’s rejoice
1 Like
Linear distribution would imply giving away ~50% of the airdrop to the top 50 addresses.
Keep in mind that BIP 14 only covers the airdrop portion of DIGG distribution (14.5% of the supply).
40% DIGG will be distributed through the liquidity mining program, and a decent portion of that will go to the Badger Sett earners in a linear fashion.
Having a more even distribution benefits DIGG as it decentralizes its supply in a meaningful way. And it allows for smaller committed DAO participants to gain more weight.
The idea that some clairvoyant whales could take advantage of this type of distribution doesn’t cancel the fact that 98% of addresses win from it.
6 Likes
It’s not “free” money. It’s taking on significant risk to support a network. Look at all the defi projects that have been hacked or rug pulled. Tens or hundreds of millions have been lost. The risk is very real. I know lots of whales that don’t participate because they can’t stomach the risk. Those that do should be rewarded. If the reward is cut in a third, that risk may no longer be worth it and liquidity could greatly dry up. Not to mention if whales leave the project they also dump all the Badger they currently have as well.
1 Like
hence the parenthesis ~ (free) ~ we are all here by ourselves for our own account, there is insurance available for the $badger protocol if you are concerned about risk @bajja
With you here. Linear may not be the best approach, but I don’t think a 1.75 root is either. And you’re right, this is just for the 14.5% --> 9% --> 14.5% drop, so whales can continue to stack digg in a linear fashion through digg mining.
ha that kinda proves my point. i’m sure you saw what happened with cover yesterday. yes, the hacker was nice enough to return funds, but a lot of people still got screwed. basically anyone who bought cover after the hack and won’t be covered by the snapshot it out substantial $. tons of people exited their shield mining claim/no claim positions at a loss because they feared the project was dead. the risks are real.
2 Likes