I would recommend starting to build a CRV veCRV moat as one aspect of diversification.
This will provide a further additional return on BTC pools as they can become boosted, and the veCRV returns will be a further revenue. Furthermore the DAI and ETH pools can also be boosted if those are put to work in Curve pools.
Read the proposal carefully. The recommendations made sense to me and voted in line with them. However, to be honest, I would have expected more robust explanation about why you are recommending those parameters (for example, why pull a recurring 5% of the treasury and not 10%).
Without explaining a reason for the parameters, it is hard to for the community to discuss them and share different points of view. It is also difficult to take informed decisions and cast a vote accordingly.
Of course, I also believe that further down the road this āframeworkā could be subject to change.
I agree with the previous comment that it is better to have a basket of stablecoins and not only DAI.
I also agree that this is not the moment for buybacks. This is a moment to build a strong and successful DAO. Buybacks are a tool that could be used for strategic purposes (and when in the best interest of the DAO). I donāt believe in buybacks as an attempt to influence price.
The DAO set up because it believes in Bitcoin is going to sell all the Bitcoin? 
I agree with the idea of a a basket of stablecoins and not only DAI.
Why not in the form of an already constituted index? It could save time and gas. Maybe not flexible enough in case of need for possible reallocation? Probably too early to talk about it but we should think about it if we keep this idea.
Build a balance sheet, donāt do buybacks. Reason:
Strong balance sheet creates perceived, real and increasing value for Badger, which can always be used for buybacks in very long term future. The increasing value of the balance sheet will be reflected in the Badger price, see it as ābuyback future potentialā fund.
Whereas buybacks now destroy value for badger, itās like spending your money and not saving for the future, itās short-term and very poor financial decision making. It would make purchasing badger far less attractive for market participants going forward, which is FAR more damaging to the price after a tiny pump from buybacks.
Thanks for posting this. I have two questions:
What % of revenue is expected to go towards operational expenses (hiring, audits, devs, building/testing new products, etc.). I would even consider stabilizing $DIGG to be a worthwhile operational expense as it relates to a Badger product.
Why canāt revenue after expenses simply be distributed to badger holders instead of creating additional management responsibilities? I would prefer this over buybacks or reinvesting revenue into speculative positions.
I am with others that we should put off a buyback until DIGG/wBTC stabilizes.
Points:
Hence I wonder - is this a badger revenue management or treasury BIP?
This is why I voted for 25/75 eth/stable. It will be nice when eth is going up but what about when going down? I would rather have more allocated to stablecoins to reduce risk.
I like the idea of staking the eth. Perhaps we could then use stETH rewards to buy DIGG or BADGER for further emissions or for some other purpose such as grants, etc.
This is about the treasury having liquid, reliable capital with assets less volatile than BTC, i.e. hedging shorter term risk. BTC is a long play.
yes I would prefer to just diversify 20% into eth and stake it to earn rewards and keep the rest in btc.
Gas fees being a concern, maybe we should think about allocate a part of the Badger Utility Fund into mining $CHI and/or Yam uGAS (or any equivalent). I was thinking 1 or 2% as a parachute/insurance/emergency mattress.
Something else: Is it complicated to conceive an automated trading dapp to manage Revenue and Treasury Management ? Is it a bad idea?
From what I can tell, just buy some ETH and stick it into an APY earning account. Pull from there to pay for gas. That is pretty much an equal hedge to a gas token, in a bull market.
If we are going to move some revenue to stablecoins then I think PAXG should be considered as well.
I think this is a great discussion. Iām not sure yet about specifics for allocation, but hereās something that might be beneficial.
What about investing a portion of the treasury in an index fund, a DeFi one like INDEX Coop? I have no affiliations to them, but I know indexes are a smart, stable investment over time. I think this would be a smart consideration, rather than trying to figure out how to develop such a fund ourselves.
Additionally, since they are a DeFi index fund, you could argue that Badger users would see inherent value in such a relationship.
I get what you say in term of pure value, but I donāt agree in term of logic and organisation.
Itās like saying āDonāt buy a car that consumes less, invest your money in oil and use the dividends to pay for gasolineā or "Do not take insurance, each time you buy something put the equivalent of its value in a savings account and you will be covered ".
this. need more crv vecrvāing
This was a great positive and proactive discussion. It, however, was moved to a snapshot without considering a lot of the things discussed here and the feedback provided by the community.
I voted FOR in the snapshot because I support the BIP. However, I do sincerely hope that moving forward, BIPs are improved and enriched before moving them to snapshot.
