Gather opinions regarding the technical implementation
Seek approval and consensus on the proposal
Provide users an option to auto stake the to be claimed (50%) $BADGER Rewards from the products in the Sett vault so that a user can automatically re-invest 100% of the rewards
The proposal has been pre-discussed in the general discussion part of the Forum, with 88% voting in favor of 100% reinvest, 73% in favor of the optionality and 15% wanted 100% re-invest as a standard. That’s why this proposal takes this poll forward into a approval on on the option to re-invest 100%. https://forum.badger.finance/t/auto-invest-100-badger-rewards/1098
**When staking in a product in the Sett Vault, 50% of the $badger rewards is automatically re-invested into the sett. If a user also wants to stake the other 50% of the rewards back into a sett, a user must now claim and stake the $badger into the set. These two actions need to be done manual, and because of the gas costs involved (and those are quite high for the small bag holders) it is not attractive to claim and re-stake the rewards. This proposal asks for an option to the user, to automatically claim and stake 100% of the $badger rewards back into the involved Sett.
By providing the user an optional tick box next to/inside the “claim your rewards” button which provides the user the option to re-invest 100% of the rewards (auto claim+stake).
Users that do not want to autostake the other 50% are not impacted and the users that do want this strategy have an additional strategy at hand.
1. Option to automate claim and auto-stake
Claim and auto-stake 100% of their rewards from a staking into a given Sett in the vault.
Voting for and against to proceed with implementation
Dev team can provide details on the technical implementation and UX by creating a proposal and UX wireframe
If the proposal is in line with the requirements from this BIP, implementation can golive
Approve proposal to implement option to Auto-Invest 100%
You know with digg coming online. Some careful thought about reinvestment options for DIGG and Badger rewards into setts might be appropriate.
Some people may want to automatically reinvest their DIGG into one the Badger setts, others may want to take their Badger sell for wBTC and pair with DIGG etc. Some general thinking about reinvestment options for the little guys here to save mainnet fees for claiming might be worthwhile.
I can already see the main net fees to get my DIGG, pair and reinvest it are probably going to put me out of this game and a more level playing field for the little guys vs. the big guys would really be beneficial to the ecosystem. A report of how people are setting their reinvestment options and/or changing them would be a nice feature as well. Indicating how people are feeling about whether Badger, Digg or wBTC are better investments (i.e. as a forward looking price indicator)
Got the forward looking indicator idea when thinking about interest re-investment options in BlockFi - having switched mine from ETH to USDC lately. (this being a bearish on ETH kind of signal in my case).
@ETh_Man I can understand that there will be lots more thinkable strategies in the future and I would be happy if there will be more options evolving from this proposal. For the sake of this proposal, maybe good to seperate: This one is plain and simple in it’s requirements purposefully, an option to set the 50% to 100% in the Sett that you get the rewards from to not overcomplicate it.
like the idea but I’m aware that implementation isn’t easy. So I don’t know if this is something that we should consider now or maybe put on the list of nice-to-have (I think it’s actually on that list
What I could envision in a shorter timeframe is a smart contract that you could use to reinvest your unclaimed rewards, and that would do all the transactions for you, probably save on gas and for that also allow the use of CHI. Not optimal, but better.
So my vote would be no, not because I don’t like the idea but because I know this would require some extensive re-work and this might not be the time for it. (but, as I said, it’s on my list)
@gismar thank you for the reply. Everything requiring smart contract work is like pulling teeth.
I agree we should have this in a working list. I was thinking about implementation and thinking once a user sets their choices on ‘reinvestment’ stratagies then their rewards just enter that contract which then would rebalance when fees to do it are suitable. But yeah would require rewrite of the staking contracts to segregate reward funds into different ‘restaking’ contracts which would be executed periodically.
At least we got the 50% option.
I think a driver for this might be some sort of analysis on how much in reward value is just sitting idle binned against staking value. My guess is the whales have no problem here and like 70-80% of the reward value is ‘restaked’ while the minnows that make up the 10-20% mostly are not restaking or getting 50% restaked so not a huge value loss to the ecosystem (maybe 5-10% of total).
Oh as a fellow minnow believe me that this isn’t something that we’re not considering because of any economic reasons (I’d be very much opposed) but it’s really a mayor overhaul of the current design- this just never was part of what the vaults are supposed to do, yearn doesn’t give out rewards or reinvests those, so it would really require some extensive work.
Not saying it can’t be done or won’t be done, but at the moment, I personally think our focus should be on DIGG and making sure the launch goes well, once that is behind us, you have my vote.
@gismar I understand. DIGG is going to take center stage. I have been in the Maker community for a while as well as others. I understand smart contract work requires a lot of time. It is why if we are going to make changes we should put some effort into making changes that can last.
The fact we even got the 50% reinvestment helped me A LOT.
I think a potential big driver for this could be a look at the data on vault sizes and rewards left unclaimed. This is TVL that is just sitting there and if it grows (more smaller users and particularly if network fees start to skyrocket again) there could be real impetus for such a project.
I completely agree with you that DIGG should be the current focus. The community can revist the reinvestment ideas later.
One question how much work would it be to change the 50% reinvestment to 100%? Is that a big deal? Big deal meaning new contract and a extract stake from old contract restake in new due to the way the rewards are dripped out? (50% to user, 50% to restaking contract available to stake manager?)
Is there anywhere other than a contract we can see how the restaking mechanics DO work?
after calculating my round trip gas cost plus not leaving anytime soon i am in favor of 100% auto-invest earned rewards. at the same time; claiming, depositing, and staking your earned $badger is a big part of the fun of being involved in the dao.
i would like to hear about how users can turn off 100% auto-invest
-what happens if users started turning off 100% auto-invest en-masse after it becomes popular?
See guys, @gismar is essentially talking about what I was concerned about in the original discussion of this topic. It’s really not about whether or not this is a great idea on the surface, but the fact that ZERO discussion has taken place about the technical implementation or purpose of the original design. This is an especially important consideration as we consider developers workloads with DIGG and other major focuses on their plate.
Meanwhile, BIP 16 brought up a buyback program, something intensely valuable to the long-term survival of Badger, and there’s very little interest because it went to vote before the idea was fully fleshed out.
I don’t want to see us going the route of Pickle Finance. Jar swapping was a great idea on the surface. How did that turn out? There should be a workflow here for adequately covering a subject on multiple levels before it becomes a BIP and voted on like this. Otherwise we end up with uneven topic coverage before voting, which is essentially wasted time at best and presents security risk at worst.
I can’t agree more. Given that I find that smart contracts generally are not easily changable, or could be costly to users to exit one contract to enter another I think a basic discussion NEEDS to happen. developer time is costly and usually difficult to find.
I am sorry to hear that rush to make change is taking precedent over fleshing out details. My other issue is that while free and open discussion is good, having any developer who can simply and quickly address ideas in terms of easy, difficult, cheap, expensive is important. There is no reason to discuss doing something that literally can’t be implemented or the practical time to implement or the increase in gas costs make an idea prohibitive.
Which is why I asked whether the change from 50 to 100% actually costs much both in terms of developer time and/or people having to unstake and restake to even make a switch.
I also think important is the idea of ranking these things in terms of importance to be important as well.
Try to focus efforts on the most important ideas as ranked by governance votes/polls. Hell I don’t even have a good idea of what is being worked on at this point and this is my common beef in all of these projects. The general lack of a centralizedongoing running activity schedule showing what IS being worked on as well as what is in the queue agreed to be worked on much less ‘who’ is working on it and how much they are being paid.
The Badger Bounty Billboard in the Discord has been one source for this. ‘Centralizing’ workflow has been an ongoing mission and feedback is definitely welcomed.
I agree more developer involvement in these discussions is always appreciated to understand a proposal on a deeper level. I definitely don’t think a proposal should go to vote until it’s been vetted by a developer.
Every community is coming up with their own ideas.
I like simplicity. Personally a single forum thread that links to separate work threads where workers can check in might be nice. This would only include things accepted by governance by votes/polls (i.e. BIPs already voted in). Another thread would be like an ‘idea’ or preBIP proposal thread where people could put up ideas for discussion (doesn’t need to be in the format of a formal BIP necessairly). I am not a fan of decentralized management as I think having 100 people changing their minds on ranking what is being worked on just won’t work. I prefer electing managers or management teams that then present their plans as well as timelines and governance simply to allocate budgets and decide ranking of management efforts say every month in the beginning leading to quarterly updates (governance polling based on what the managers have in the queue, as well as what is being brought up by ‘the governing public generally’.) What I’d like to see is managers address ideas brought up by public and then choosing to adopt them formally, or to reject them with reason. I think this can lead to a kind of partnership with community managers, and the community generally. Managers can use their budgets to reward the public that come up with adopted ideas, and the public gets to voice their choices via periodic ranked polls to guide managers…
Very nice to see my proposal turning into such a lively thread. In my dayjob I’m a product owner, so I would also like to chip in from a different perspective. This thread is very fruitful to learn as a community how an idea from several users ends up on the pile of things to do.
If you see $badger and $digg as a startup, when you go to ‘market’, it is where the biggest pains of the user will come to light. See it as a rapid validation of the ideas you bring to the ‘market’. This wish is coming forth out of this validation and no matter how painful the change could be on the technical side, it should be taken very seriously in terms of product-market fit and even new products could grow from it. On the other hand, if you fail as community to identify and execute on important ideas that live in your community, you will loose people that want to use the product, which could be a risk in a lot of DeFi products. You need people who will gap the bridge between users and dev’s. I’m happy to see that @gismar joined to give the developer perspective and that he likes the idea, and has maybe even an alternative solution to the user ‘pain’ at hand. I think to put this idea further forward, we need to get more data like @ETh_Man mentions and work out sensible alternatives as well if they are available.
I noticed that just jamming in BIPs in this forum, is maybe not the way to improve the project as a whole. I think the BIP section needs an upgrade to a more kind of ‘decentral’ agile backlog management for all ideas (the bit @DeFiFry is also mentioning):
A) More focus - Like @gismar mentions, there are other battles that need to be fought first
B) Backlog management:
What kind of improvement idea’s are there? On which team/plate do they end?
How do we manage incoming idea’s, how do idea’s become improvement proposals and are implemented.
C) Backlog refinement - those can take different forms - open sessions where idea’s and BIPs are discussed to get the deserved level of depth like @DeFiFry mentions. More small sessions if it come closer to development.
D) Backlog prioritization
What is most important to pick up? Based on which criteria (#users impacted, fit, effort etc etc.)
E) Backlog transparancy - where can the community see an overview, with descriptions (like a Jira or other backlog tool)
F) Backlog guardians: someone or a group of people that take care of the above points
I was under the assumption that this process was more or less already in place (and maybe it is already more than I noticed…), but if not I would be more than happy to help or be involved in helping with those topics. I think it is of great importance if you want community based and product led growth.
Nice, I thought this would be a nice addition too. I don’t like the idea of my unclaimed Badger sitting there doing nothing so a 100% re-invest option would be awesome and that way I can proceed to forget about my Badger for a few months while it compounds.
I’m all for better UX. A checkbox to turn on “auto-reinvest” would be huge. However, the financial impact this would have towards the revenue (and ultimately the sustainability) of the DAO does not warrant us redirecting resources towards this. All hands are on deck now for $DIGG, UI v2, and future product buildouts. Something like this would be categorized as “nice-to-have”, but with that said, if there are any developers that would be confident to take this on as a bounty, Please do reach out to me and DAppWhisperer on Discord.
Until then, I believe we all agree this is important, but not more important than the current backlog.