BIP 24 - BADGER BOOST (Multiplier Replacement)

Someone correct me if I am wrong. But:

Native Setts are setts that contain our own tokens. Like bDIGG, bBADGER and the LP tokens that hold half badger/DIGG.

Non-Native Setts: Hold CRV wrapped bitcoin, or other posistion that have no exposure to Badger DAO’s own tokens.

My understanding is that nothing would require staking everything will autocompound 100%, bTOKENS would become something you can hold and trade and use as collateral to borrow against all on platform.

There are situations where you for example get bDIGG rewards for holding bBADGER. In this case it can not auto compound, because bBADGER doesn’t hold any DIGG, so in this case you will receive that bDIGG in in a claims window. You will however receive bDIGG which is already an auto compounding asset, so claiming it will be more about when you want to use it than because you need to Farm it.

Badger DAO wants to get away from being a Yield Farm where people burn gas to collect and reinvest tokens, and instead keep users engaged by allowing them to do other cool stuff with their on-platform assets, like borrow USD against it and make other leveraged investments.

Also imagine someone is short on their rent and needs some cash. Instead of having to sell their bitcoin, they could borrow their rent in stable, and pay it back later without loosing any exposure to BTC. It’s really quite brilliant.

1 Like

Thanks for your reply, which is in line with the twitter thread @Spadaboom wrote about this and my own understanding.

I am very OK in principle but I have not voted yet because my questions remain. I just want to fully understand how everything will work. What the “extra step” for LP’s would be, or what do they mean by “whitelisted locations”, or the implications for larger accounts.

This is what I want to see too. It would be nice to earn something for staying loyal to badger like an NFT that gives you some kind of boost or other benefit. Having it as an NFT would be cool because you could gift it or sell it if you wanted.

1 Like

Extra step for LPs would be un-staking the bBADGER to BADGER to stake in sett pools.

Whitelisted locations is related to further use of assets and is meant to prevent flashloans by not even interacting with contracts that can do that.

Hope that answers your questions


Thanks. Voted in line with the proposal which is a step in the right direction. I am excited with the possibilities and what is coming.

My only concern - short term - is the consequences for larger accounts that might now need to buy large amounts of Badger and Digg in order to optimize their rewards. Will they actually do it, will they stay in the project or will they go elsewhere? I just hope this has been carefully considered as well.

1 Like

Great discussion. I can understand the concerns on both sides regarding the long-term time based incentives. My thoughts:

As Badger and Digg emissions are a bootstrapping process that are not sustainable by design, the faster we can transition to rewarding participants in the badger ecosystem through organic incentives, the better. At some point that means the time based rewards for initial backers would need to fade (I assume this was designed to reward the high risk of backers in the first few weeks). The risk of investing in this ecosystem declines by the day and so at some point approaches a flat line - at which point we do not need time based rewards. Also we do not want to become an old boys network where newcomers are always feeling like they are second rate participants.

So moving forwards, this proposal is a good intermediate step but could do with a bit more to address long term sustainable growth. We all know badger and Digg emissions will end, so what will replace them. The ability to earn off the native assets through composability enabling lending and vaults is an good first step. But ultimately the value in any native governance token like Badger is the ability to share in the value generated by the ecosystem - the traditional dividend-like mechanism. Whether this is through burning or treasury distributions, or some other mechanism, is up for debate. This is the ultimate in long-term organic rewards and will replace the loss of the long-termism in the bootstrapping incentives. If this can be implemented while there is still large TVL and with overlap with the token emissions, it mitigates the ‘hard to avoid’ dump when emissions and associated APYs decine. So planning this now and having it defined in the road map would add confidence to existing and future participants.


This guy gets it.

Would be interested to see if we can model out this risk.

You wrote a list of questions 24 hours before you posted this. Please consider how you use words like “disappointed.”

That’s exactly what we’re designing things like this for. How do the parameters best support BadgerDAO and how do we align incentives for all users.


Badger is for Builders. In my mind the absolute best way to keep providing good APY to bBADGER holders is to continue to pump out new projects that have tokens and/or revenue streams of their own… We had Badger, next comes Digg. I’m not sure if there is a way to work in some emissions for Claw, but there is certainly some interest there we can feed-back-in. Maybe Uma has some tokens we can emit.

Our direct wrapping should find some way to generate a bit of Alpha in the process.

Right now we could resell NXM cover on badger, buying wNXM and charging in ETH and make a 30% premium there.

Let’s keep Badger juicy enough that we can offer some long term benefits (maybe for lock-in not seniority), and still have the token be interesting to hold without locking. If we really run out of good alpha and rewarding long-term HODLing is turning us into an old-boy club, we can drop it.


I am aware of that and I do agree with the proposal. My concern is short term effects on the TVL. I just want to make sure careful consideration and analysis was done to ensure a smooth transition, especially for large stakers that now will need to buy large amounts of Badger and Digg to get a decent boost.

I am sorry you felt this way, but I don’t think that the word “disappointed” is insulting or belligerent in any way, and it was not my intention. I was just surprised to see that other comments were being answered by the core team, and mine was being ignored.

This proposal will make bBadger a governance token that is also yield bearing. That’s a powerful combination. Picture opening a CDP on Maker and minting DAI. Now picture that you do it with an asset (Badger) that is accruing value from the DAO, not just via speculation. I would definitely buy that in large quantity.

Sure I understand that vision which is part of the reason why I am excited about the future, participating, discussing and voting on the DAO. However this is not part of the current proposal.

The current proposal is replacing the multiplier with a boost (and a few other changes that work together and in line with this). Makes sense, it is a step in the right direction, we are looking for composability, totally agree.

But I don’t see any analysis of how this specific change is best implemented or when, how will we transition, if we expect any impact or consequence, if we foresee a short term drop in TVL or not at all, why, how will we handle that, etc.

Maybe I am overthinking it. @spadaboom mentioned earlier that most people treat us like a farm and that won’t cut it long term. Completely agree, we need to transition and evolve. I just want to make sure that we implement this changes in a smooth way, carefully planned, all things considered. That is all.

1 Like

You’re right, that data is not present.

It’s not part of the proposal directly. Badger is changing from what it once was and if all of those elements were put into a single proposal, it would be overwhelming for most to digest. We have to read between the lines a little to peer into the DAO’s future.

Perhaps it would be a good time for @Spadaboom to write another roadmap type post that incorporates the new path that we’re treading.

1 Like

The multiplier replacement is very much in line with what BadgerDAO has been doing since its inception.

The new staking multiplier:
a) makes it more affordable for Badger users with smaller rolls to receive higher APYs in the Setts
b) creates an immediate and calculable value for Badger token: owning an X amount of Badger grants you Y% of APY increase on Z BTC that you put in a Sett.

Can the TVL drop from this change? Yes, it can, but TVL itself is not the ultimate metric of success, there are nuances.

For example, there’s not much benefit for the DAO from the value locked that simply farms the token. And the old multiplier allows you to be in a BTC Sett and receive the maximum APY while farming & dumping the token.

Another important metric for governance tokens is how widely they’re distributed. And the new multiplier fosters that too.


I am not criticizing the proposal. On the contrary, I consider it very important.

Which is exactly why I want to make sure that the transition is well planned and we have considered all moving parts (and potential different outcomes). That is all.

Remember that even great initiative, if poorly implemented, can lead to unexpected results. I would want to avoid that as much as possible.

1 Like

How would the multiplier work in native setts? Is there even a multiplier in native setts today? I just assumed there was.

After reading everything here I wanted to make some comments.

First, thank you for all your hard work $BADGER team. @Spadaboom @Mr_Po @jonto, etc.
I do believe that this is the way forward as it incentives people to hold onto badger for utility and other reasons and will allow the “small player” to see more value in having BADGER tokens - amongst other benefits.

Although, I do would like to see an option for people to stake their badgers for a higher yield whether it be another multiplier system or not. This is a good compromise as it gives the “die hard” BADGERS a way to “lock in” and support the ecosystem. Has this scenario been played out and how it could affect the planned systems in place? This would give @Tritium - and I’m sure some others - an option. It doesn’t have to be much, but just enough to promote “longtermism”.

Thank you,

I’m going to work with @jonto on a follow-up BIP to create time-locked LP positions that get a multiplier on the LP emissions/rewards.

Hopefully we can find a way to make the compostable so they can be used with the rest of the ecosystem. Hope to see this in snapshot soon, I think it will pass. Maybe modify the text of this BIP to state that we will have follow-up BIP’s in the next weeks to check the multiplier and deal with time based rewards just so everyone feels like they can still vote on it if these are concerns.


I created a quick survey to test interest in a follow up BIP for long-term LP locking per suggestion from @Spadaboom. Please go have a look and vote/give feedback so I can decide if this is worth investing more time in.

1 Like

I see, why just LP positions and not also BADGER positions? I think it’d be beneficial for it to also include just BADGER positions, yea?

1 Like

$BADGER boost is a great idea and modeling $CRV, the king protocol of defi, is a very good idea.

Some points:

  1. Will the $BADGER boost be tokenised like yveCRV?
  2. Will BADGER boost be a 4 year lock like veCRV?

I have followed Curve closely since its inception so happy to be part of a more detailed discussion of pros and cons of the boost design. I think a permanent lock like yveCRV, but remaining tradeable as the separate token (possibly with incentivised sushiswap pool, something YFI have failed to do for yveCRV), might be the best solution. Effectively $BADGER is being permanently burned into a second derivative product.

The problem with no lock is when TVL decreases as it inevitably will at times of lower yield or broad market weakness, you get a double whammy effect on token price as people have no need for $BADGER and sell back into market.