My initial thought was that it should be initially aidropped directly into the DIGG staking contract but that causes friction for those who want to pool Digg/wBTC LP, since they’d need to unstake + withdraw, then pool.
By airdropping directly into the Sett contract, it makes it only 2 transactions for those who want to stake: Approve bDigg Spend + Stake, instead of 5 transactions: Claim Digg + Approve Digg Spend + Deposit + Approve bDigg spend + Stake
For those who want to provide liquidity, they’d just need to withdraw from the Sett and do the same steps as normal. Withdrawing from the Sett is the same number of transactions as Claiming from Hunt, so it’s no additional harm for those looking to provide liquidity.
This BIP will make staking a lot easier for people and minimize dumping. Especially for people who are receiving a small drop, they’d look at their current options as follows:
Claim from Hunt
Sell on Uniswap or Sushi
or
Claim from Hunt
Perform 4 additional gas transactions to Stake (friction!!!)
vs
Withdraw from Sett
Sell on Uniswap or Sushi
or
Perform 2 additional gas transactions to Stake (easy!!!)
implementation:
Voting for and against to proceed with implementation
Dev team can provide details on the technical implementation
If supported via forum vote, and no technical roadblocks, can proceed to snapshot
Can go live if supported on snapshot
Approve Proposal to deposit DiggDrop directly in Digg Sett
I wrote the same thing in BIP-21. I’ve changed that to link here. This is my original text about this topic:
Etherium is now pushing $1000 and transactions under 50 GWEI seem harder and harder to pull off. As this airdrop comes in, a majority of the recipients will be guppies and shrimp I (without much math) estimate to receive between $5-$200 US in Digg. The cost to deposit that in a sett and stake it hardly worth it at current prices, so the only real option is to sell.
We could on the other hand take all the $DIGG to be airdropped and deposit it into the $DIGG set receiving $bDIGG tokens. Then airdrop the $bDIGG. This would mean that staking the initial investment would only be 2 cheap txs (approve/stake), but that moving to the unis/sushi swap LP pools or selling the DIGG would require 2 extra transactions (approve and withdraw).
I still suggest that we offer rewards for liquidity on the DIGG/WBTC pools (and not the bDIGG) pools, as this is what the protocol needs. But maybe we could find a partner AMM like snow-swap to offer some rewards/incentives a bDIGG/DIGG or bDIGG/WBTC pool and/or incentivise one of the ones that naturally pops up later.
Advantages:
Small players can stay in the pools without spending stupid amounts of gas.
Airdropped bDIGG token is non-rebasing but has a floating price, so it makes the airdrop easier to understand for those who don’t get rebasing.
Sets the idea of bDIGG also as a tradable and interesting asset from day 1.
Disadvantages:
Entering an LP position takes a bit more gas/work. This could result in some smaller LP’s deciding not to move into an LP position and instead hold bDOGG to avoid gas costs.
May be hard to explain to the community (but we are supposedly airdropping to our engaged users so…)
By airdropping directly into the Sett contract, it makes it only 2 transactions for those who want to stake: Approve bDigg Spend + Stake, instead of 5 transactions: Claim Digg + Approve Digg Spend + Deposit + Approve bDigg spend + Stake
Does this require not having the claiming process?
If you just need to approve bDIGG + Stake - it means that bDIGG already sits on your address, right?
While otherwise when people need to claim, we end up with some unclaimed DIGG that eventually goes to the DAO treasury.
Yes. The Sett contract would be launched with the bDigg amounts allocated to the addresses on genesis. I’m not a dev but imagine doing it like that is similar to launching a claim contract that says addresses are allocated x amount.
This BIP will make staking a lot easier for people and minimize dumping.
Well, if we think about DIGG buy/sell pressure, the cluster of addresses that are affected by gas prices will likely represent a very small % of DIGG supply.
If we think of it in terms of overall quality of life change, we also have to factor in the confusion of receiving bDIGG instead of DIGG.
When you receive DIGG, you decisions are somewhat straight forward.
Needing to unwrap your bDIGG as a default mechanic before you can experience the fact that it is a rebasing currency would be adding confusion on top of something that is already hard to understand.
Because you would know that DIGG is a rebasing asset, but the amount of bDIGG you own doesn’t change.
Or you go to Uniswap to LP, and end up LPing bDIGG instead of DIGG, then go to Badgerdao and can’t stake it.
So overall confusion + the amount of ETH Badgers will end up spending on gas might rise with this change.
And we can’t accurately assess that, because people who will get affected aren’t likely to visit this forum.
Proposing modification to the token model / airdrop distribution because of raising gas cost, which was not that not hard to predict tbh, reminds me a little bit of asking for a bailout because of wrong investment decisions.
How about hedging gas cost with the Badger treasury by buying uGas?
The profit, caused by the gas price spikes because of the future digg mania , by hedging with uGas will be redistributed to the badger/digg staker.
Interesting discussion on ways to reduce gas costs with the skyrocketing ETH prices.
Another suggestion is taking a page from the Algorithmic Stable-coins and introduce a PROVIDE option in the LP stakes which allows to add WBTC ( from wallet) to the already earned DIGG directly without going back to the UNI/SUCHI. This is done in 1 single transaction.
I think this warrants additional discussions. I do think that gas fees in USD will keep rising, mainly because I expect Ethereum prices to rise (and potentially very fast). So even when gas prices in gwei are constant, claiming and restaking will become not cost-effective for a lot of people (even wallets which balances are not that small). Today, now, you need to have more than USD 1,000 worth of $BADGER to make it cost effective to claim, deposit again, and then restake again (three different contract calls, each with high fees).
I think it is important to keep discussing ways to make this process more cost effective especially for people that want to compound their earnings (both Badger and Digg). But discussions should be accompanied with actual proposals for implementation (developers that will do it), because there may be other priorities for the core team.
In light of all the rampant criticisms and attacks on the team for not addressing every BIP, I will no longer be approving half-baked BIPs to be shown on the forum that do not include the necessary information for effective implementation. Keep discussion related posts only to the General section. Once you submit a properly filled out BIP, we can continue the discussions in governance.
, by hedging with uGas will be redistributed to the badger/digg staker.