If there comes a point when these systems/structures are clearly hurting us/limiting our growth/scaring away new people we can talk about changing them. Right now it’s working good, why abandon it?
It takes time to build.
In my opinion, we need to think proactively about our transitions towards more sustainable and capital efficient models.
These systems/structures will be hurting our growth. For instance, you won’t be able to stake bBadger in the Geyser and use it as collateral at the same time.
If we start to develop new systems/structures only once it becomes evident, it will already be too late.
Also, there’s no metric that will clearly tell us how much we miss out on newcomers.
Keep in mind that what is working well now is based on 2.9% of weekly supply distribution and anticipation of another airdrop.
Is it possible to have both the BADGER boost and the time-based multiplier? Say both with a max multiplier of 2x, so 4x in total. Or is it an either or for technical reasons?
IMO the Geysers are imperfect but acceptable for now. I agree that it is important to be able to use all system value as collateral. I strongly believe it is important take our time and do this right. Maybe go back to the community and see if some other people have counter-proposals if you’re stuck.
I agree it would be best to figure out something before we release CLAW and/or we need to be able to accept staked value as collateral.
I wish I could think up an elegant system to make this all work easily.
What about something in the direction of using badger staked days and currently staked native tokens to determine long termism?
There is no metric that will clearly tell us the value of one or another, that’s why I think the culture/community element is such an important thing to think about here.
I really think 4 or even 5 is a better default for max badger boost. The way that this is formed isn’t fair.
50/150 just isn’t fair for people who are primarily interested in staking with high ratios and I’m afraid that people picking 3 will be overrun with the low ratio people.
Overall I think introducing a multiplier that is not dependant on everyone staking in the geyser is a big step forward.
If it’s staked it’s not useable which prevents composability along with just having our vaults deeper in the DeFi stack. The deeper and more distributed across protocols they are the higher the stickiness of the TVL.
With that said I think it makes sense to look at having an option for users to stake on a longer period of time. 6 months + potentially and this would be easy to do. We would just keep the geysers and stake function in the app but adjust the geyser parameters. Where you can withdraw during the lockup and the minimum time frame would be XYZ.
What % of users would stake for that period of time? I think a very small %. Maybe under 5% but may still be good to have that as an option.
Regardless long term staking is not a good solution for composability which I think is a top priority.
Points 1-4 which I didn’t address above I think are spot on. It’s all about bBadger and bDIGG in my opinion.
Great job by all the folks that lead this proposal. Always impressed on the level of diligence and thoughtfulness.
I do think the current setup hurts Badger alot. Most people treat us like a farm. Call it what it is.
Badger is the first place they will move their capital away from. We need to bring more value to those users and create stickiness. Being a better “farm” wont cut it for the long term.
What happens when the next Bitcoin focused farm comes out with 5x the APY to us. Alot of TVL will leave.
It won’t leave if they are getting value from us they aren’t getting other places. For example being able to borrow against your vault position. Today this is not possible without significant changes to the infrastructure we have. In my opinion we need to move away from the geysers as soon as possible yet define a new mutliplier strategy that rewards those that keep their assets in the sett.
What are the gas cost implications for Badger DAO itself for rewarding in bBADGER and bDIGG? Are we just shifting the cost to the DAO in order to deposit newly minted BADGER and DIGG into the Setts prior to distributing as rewards?
Doesn’t change my vote, just would like to know what the cost analysis is.
I understand not wanting to deter newcomers, but excluding any time element in the incentive mechanism removes a unique property of BadgerDao over other yield opportunities.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this proposal would mean any whale could come in buy enough BADGER to reach the stake ratio to receive the highest APYs, the only deterrent is the slippage. They could then dump BADGER as soon as another yield opportunity arises.
I’m in favour of removing the staking to open the possibilities of composability, but I am wondering if there are other ways we can incentivise longer term holding of BADGER.
Shouldn’t it be 5+ so we’re not setting limits too early before we even have anything concrete. Leaving things open for later and being up front about it will be best for the project. Creating barriers too soon and then changing later won’t look good. You can minimize at a later date if you leave options open.
While this BIP can seem damaging to long term stakers, you only have to read the quote above to understand that this IS the way forward. Having btokens as a yield bearing asset that can move around, be used as collateral, bought/sold, etc. is what will create long term users.
What we’ll lose on the current multiplier system, we’ll make up for in functionality and price discovery.
Perhaps I mis-stated. I understand that the Geysers are no good and blocking future development. I more meant a system structured around rewarding long-termism with multiplers. Clearly we have to find something other than what we have now.
It’s great that we are thinking and planning for these scenarios now. With this new found composability is borrowing against the vault position the main use case and incentive you see to retain these users?
Call me old school but I am not a huge fan of taking leverage through loans / borrowing given the liquidation risk if there is large price volatility.
I totally agree.
The badger token is what powers the DAO, we need to constantly think of ways to accrue more value to it be it utility, monetary or otherwise, but we have to do it intelligently so as not to destabilize what we have already built/achieved and i believe this BIP does exactly that. @jonto@mason@Spadaboom, @DeFiFrog, @Mr_Po you guys did great coming out with this
A few hours ago @Tritium was saying that the badger token has no value and is purely speculative. This BIP makes it that holders of the badger token in our setts get more out of the badger ecosystem, and that IMO is one more reason to buy badger.
@Tritium i don’t think long terminism is necessarily a good thing if it does not really contribute anything to the badger token value wise, for example, with the present setup someone with just BTC can actually earn good yield if they stake their btc for a reasonable length of time without actually touching badger, i don’t think this is right IMO.
Also we have to constantly evolve as this space moves fast, we can’t continue to get stuck in the past simply because it works, if there is room for improvement we shouldn’t be afraid to step out of our comfort zone and embrace it. This is a DAO and if this decision doesn’t work as intended we can always rescind it.
Im against removing time base multiplier but i understand that you want to attract more wheals as they leave good fees in treasury. Why we can’t have 2 option available (Time and Volume multiplier) and apply which ever is higher. That’s will be win-win scenario.
How much we reward non-native stakers and including how much is staked in native tokens as a factor of that is something different. I think someone just staking BTC on badger should be able to get a decent yield, but it only needs to be competitive with the industry. Interacting with the platform in other ways and holding native tokens should certainly boost APY.
None of this excludes a long-term aspect. I guess the real issue here is that without the Geyser we don’t have a technical way to reward long-termism and the Geyser is a bit of a black box that limits our path forward. I’m just wondering when/how/if it would be possible to come up with a solution that rewards participation within the ecosystem as well as staying in the game.
If the DAO decides we should abandon this principal fine, but we should talk about it for what it is and not have it lost in a technically complex BIP that covers many different things.
I could even support dropping the time multiplier if we also agreed to keep the withdraw fee, or raise it to 1 or 2%, but a lot of people don’t like the fees.
