BIP 25- Grants Month 2

Category: Governance
Scope: Determine Badger Grants for Month 2.
Status: Accepted


  • Outline who should receive month 2 grants from the treasury
  • The responsibilities of those receiving grants


Badger is growing fast! We’ve had a bunch of new people get involved in small initiatives and larger commitments. It amazing to see just how passionate and involved our community has grown to become and I’m looking forward to where we get to for Month 3.

As we approach month 2 of operations, this proposal outlines who has been actively furthering BadgerDAO and should receive grants for their contributions. To compensate these contributors we’ll leverage the treasury in the form of $BADGER. Currently there is 7.3M+ $BADGER in the treasury. Since grants round 1, there have been additional contributors that have expressed interest to be involved on a continuous basis along with people that completed bounties who deserve retroactive compensation.

As we grow, we will continue to learn how to best structure compensation. At this point I propose we do this model for month 2 and 3 which will allow many contributors to find the right fit along with building confidence in making Badger their full time commitment.

These proposals are meant to gather feedback from the community and if there are grants you don’t agree with please voice your opinion. If there is community consensus around that discrepancy we will adjust accordingly.


Past Contribution Grants

  • Sam1221- Active in reviewing new smart contract code working closely with lead developer dapp-whisperer (now known as digg-whisperer) Grant 500 $BADGER
  • Mr.Po - Took lead on outlining, defining and proposing critical governance proposals including dual emissions, Peg based rewards and worked closely on treasury + Badger staking mechanics. Grant 400 $BADGER
  • Mason - Took lead around defining, structuring and building a treasury management strategy along with proposal. Grant 200 $BADGER
  • Thunder - Actively worked with the dev team focused on smart contract and security infrastructure. 200 $BADGER
  • Swole - Lead development and structure for FARM Supersett and additional internal development needs 750 $BADGER
  • DeFi Frog - Special projects management guiding Treasury & Revenue Management Strategy and Frameworks and supporting $DIGG/$BADGER Dual Emissions design 200 $BADGER

Ongoing Contributors

Front End Development

  • mitche 1000 $BADGER

Backend/Smart Contract Development

  • shakeshack 1200 $BADGER (moving to a full time role)
  • gismar 750 $BADGER
  • Swole 750 $BADGER


  • DeFi Frog - Leading internal operations, Product & Job Boards, and Governance/Snapshot Steward 1000 $BADGER
  • BitcoinPalmer - Partnerships and general operations 500 $BADGER
  • Mr.Po 500 BADGER - Governance lead and strategy
  • Mason - 500 BADGER - Treasury management and financial modelling analysis
  • Niklas - Project manager 400 BADGER
  • kris2f - Leading contest, onboarding champion for operations and moderator 300 $BADGER
  • J audefi Grants Curator 300 BADGER

Product/Project Management

  • Jonto- Leading DIGG product and operational strategist. 800 $BADGER

Marketing and Content

  • Ingalandia - Marketing and content lead including blog, social media 500 $BADGER
  • DeFiFry- Content and blog manager 300 $BADGER

Graphic Design and Video Creation/Editing

  • Donald 400 $BADGER

Badger support

  • kryptobi 200 $BADGER
  • faces - 200 $BADGER
  • sp7290- 200 $BADGER
  • Poopster- 200 $BADGER

Bounties From Last Month (some complete others intended to finish this month)

  • David King - SEO optimization 50 $BADGER
  • Donzalion (DAOtalk) - Filipino Translations 45 $BADGER
  • MorazanCA#3616- Spanish Translations 5 $BADGER
  • IEscanore - Spanish Translations 5 $BADGER
  • Jake Lim - Korean Translations 40 $BADGER
  • GeorgeSchtok#4220 - GermanTranslations 20 $BADGER
  • w.s#2795 - Chinese Translations 60 $BADGER
  • 3KQgt0Cl#0464- Greek Translations 100 $BADGER
  • cryptouf#2315 - French Translations 60 $BADGER
  • staff91#6813 - Italian Translations 15 $BADGER
  • BigSky#5342 - DAO Rush Week Presentation 40 $BADGER
  • Gabriel Haines - Gitbook Revamp 200 $BADGER
  • Ri0t - Leading Badger Substack - 150 $BADGER
  • VLK Tritium - Graph Node Setup 200 $BADGER
  • wileaf#5598 (what is digg) website 120 $BADGER

New Smart Contract Advisory Board

Dedicated group for reviewing new contracts Badger builds. This is an ongoing commitment and intended to be a critical part of our internal security and review processes. All developers chosen have deep smart contract expertise and are familiar with Badger infrastructure.

  • Sam1211- 500 $BADGER
  • Shakeshack -500 $BADGER
  • fshutdown-500 $BADGER
  • Andy8052 - 500 $BADGER
  • Arcsin2000x -500 $BADGER

Special Grants

  • Merch Contest = 400 $BADGER Total
  • MEME Contest = 200 $BADGER Total

Total $BADGER Allocation for month 2 = 16,460 $BADGER

If you are in favour of the proposed month 2 grants, vote “for” and if you are not in favour vote “against”. Please share your feedback and guidance.

  • For
  • Against

0 voters


I agree that ongoing contributors that are providing value should be adequately compensated. So, if you think that distribution is fair, I couldn’t object more and I would support the proposal.

However I see some people getting very small compensations (bounties) and probably that is justified but the proposal does not explain why the very different amounts. Perhaps some completed more work than others but those that didn’t complete I don’t think they deserve a bounty, to be honest.

So overall I voted against.


I would personally rather see us use revenue from products to pay contributors rather than governance tokens. I voted against. We already have made over 1 million in revenue, why can’t we use this or a combination of to pay those who deserve it?


Yes those bounties were for small one time tasks. A few were larger like the Graph project but most smaller things.


I find it plausible, I voted for
Badger :heart:

1 Like

Thanks, however bounties for the translations are quite diverse, ranging from 5 to 100 $BADGER. Which I don’t understand. Probably the smaller ones did less translations than the larger amounts (or completed partial work and not what was expected).

If they in fact did only partial work, I think they should only receive a grant when they do complete the work, and the grant should be the same for all languages (since the amount of work is the same).

For all other grants, as I stated earlier, I do agree that all ongoing contributors should be adequately compensating because they are doing a brilliant job. For them, I trust that the proposal is fair.

By the way, there was a comment earlier stating that the compensations for the ongoing contributors should be coming from the revenue generated by the DAO and not from the treasury. In principle I agree with that unless I am missing something.


What type of information would you like to see in order to better understand monthly and recurring contributor grants?

On the topic of paying contributors with revenue, that can be put up to a proposal if structured properly.

The considerations that should be made are:

  1. we have 7.35MM in BADGER treasury and roughly $1.3MM in the Revenue Account
  2. it’s desirable to pass as much value as possible from Revenue to DAO stakers
  3. paying in native assets gives contributors skin in the game and helps avoid situations like Yearn is going through right now

This Round of Grants is 16,460 BADGER / 7,350,000 BADGER in treasury, .22% of BADGER in treasury; but it’s 13.4% of Assets in Revenue Account. If we only used treasury to reward contributors at current prices and current run it would let us do so for 37 years


Thank you very much for your reply.

On the monthly and recurring contributor grants, the contributors have done a brilliant job. I also know that there is a lot of work behind the scenes that the community is not aware about and couldn’t possible evaluate (only the core team can evaluate). Therefore I trust that the proposal is fair and I could’t possibly object.

My only observation for the bounties is that grants should be provided for completed work and not parial.

Regarding the topic of paying contributors with revenue, I agree with all the considerations you have outlined and maybe it is a discussion for the future.

1 Like

Before we distribute money for next month we should be able to view report from last month. How money were spend and what it accomplish, what is still in progress. Summary of activates related with last month grands.


Total agree :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

1 Like

Totally agree. We need to see progress report and exact scope and timeline for each assignment.

Especially for front end /UI that was not a successful launch. No money spent until it is fully fixed for all users, desktop and mobile.

Voting against, requesting to provide transparency and accountability.

@Reem @spartacus_rising

Currently, financial/data analysis has been primarily focused on 1) digg airdrop parameters to attempt to eliminate sybil/manipulation, 2) dual emissions (with the added complexity of rebasing asset), and 3) revenue performance tracking dashboards (WIP).

Monthly or quarterly reports are something I definitely think would be beneficial for all community members as well, and it is something we are working towards in segments. I think we should consider opening a bounty for a CPA or ex-banker to define FP&A report structure, pull raw data, build these kinds of presentations. That process in and of itself really is deserving of a semi, if not, actual professional in that field IMO.


What an interesting conversation! What I gather, is that there are some members of the community that would like to be more involved in thinking about, tracking and understanding compensation.

In the case of regular contributors. They should just receive a regular salary (based on a clear justification) and be done with it until situations change and there is another vote. We could also agree to review these quarterly or biannually as matter of procedure. Most of the posts here seem to agree with this.

It would be great if each one-off bounty/grant or reward came with a short (less than 1 pager) about why the bounty was being given and how the persons contributions add value to our product/community/ecosystem. It’s also an opportunity to highlight someones contributions and provide some positive emotional capital. The challenge is that @Spadaboom and the seed team are certainly too busy to handle that, but maybe we could offer 50-100 badger per month to someone from the community who could collect all this information, write it all up, and create more of a system where by the community can highlight good work and also feel able to suggest bounties

This may all be stuff fore month 6, not month 2 or 3, but compensation in a DAO is something I’m very interested in.

Also thanks for the bounty :). It will be my first, and it gives me great hope that I can keep moving forward and make a career for myself in DAOland.

Maybe @cryptomooniac could do this next month as a POC.


I couldn’t agree more. We’re managing over 700 million in assets and over 1 million a month in revenue. We should pay someone smart to do reporting/financial analytics/provide advice. It would be best if this person had enough coding skills to write/publlish real-time repots in Dune or something and build the whole thing as a (near)real-time view of the DAO’s finances and not a regular static report.


Perhaps we should expand the grant curation bounty/role to collect more detail and be more transparent next moth. It seems reasonable that each bounty links to somewhere with a bit more details. That is the posistion I was describing above. When possible it would also be nice if this writeup included a link to any visible results:

  • pull requests against github
  • new websites setup, articles written, or visual content generated. (translated materials
  • Dashboards with relavent KPI’s that have/are expected to change as a result of the work (SEO)
  • Write-up from bounty creator about what they did/how it’s different (in the case of documentation for example)
  • Blog/twitter/discord link about successful satisfaction of (most of) the community (in the case of airdrops for example)
  • Link to blog post/tweet describing a new program and how the community can engage (substack)
  • Link to youtube videos/press showing the results of an event (DAO Rush Week)

I know this creates a lot of extra work, but it seems worth spending a bit more time/badger/whatever it takes on doing this in a transparent way.

It also brings up some questions about agreeing to/paying bounties before they are done. I’m less sure how to deal with that. I personally think it’s fine to pay people before hand, with the understanding that the community will not continue to reward them bounties if they do not contribute quality work to meet both the functional and “reporting” requirements stated in the bounty. We could also just pay/vote to pay after the work is done and evidence is in place.


I agree with you.

Especially with that part. Just for transparency.
On my side you can find all translations here:

More to come as soon as $Digg is here !

It’s also the first (2nd round) , maybe a full report is also planned . Wait and see.

Extra question: I guess some grants, will quickly become salaries (or recurrent grants) for some members. Are you planning any vesting ?

I am generally against payments in tokens as the value floats both up and down.

Tokens represent ownership of a protocol and while they are commonly used to pay people IF those people require income to sustain their work they will sell them. Hence people should be paid in ‘cash’ so either the protocol sells them in unison to raise that cash (fairer for everyone) or use revenue to pay that cash.

My point here is the value being offered has no rhyme or reason against the work because the value of the tokens fluctuate so much.

Set rewards in $$ and then raise those $$ however. IF bonuses are to be offered, they can be offered in tokens that ‘vest’ over time like any normal company. This means people are compensated in $$ for the work they offer, and based on their commitment and time vesting they then are rewarded with an ownership stake in the project.

Hence I voted no on the above. Set this compensation in $$ not tokens and then figure out how to raise those $$. If there is any extra compensation in tokens - vest them in the project (for at least 1 year).

The above achieves two goals. Fair compensation for work for the workers, and fair dilution for all token holders to achieve that compensation (i.e. the protocol sells all at once to raise $$ vs. individuals). Bonuses in tokens that vest become a investment component to reward people above and beyond what they need to sustain work that becomes a long term investment in the project success (it is a bonus that is only claimable after a vesting period and to reap that the protocol must be successful).


I´d voted FOR as if contributors do their best to help improving, kind of meritocracy approach, it will be better for everyone. This is a fair distribution, not talking about amounts but about badger sharing, compared to the discussion happening at yearn finance now :frowning: If you can commit best in clase contributors and give them part of what was developed as venture shares, they will do their best to keep rocking. My only concern is what happens if new badger owners-devs use them to affect the protocol (rug pulls, others). Do you think that this granted badgers can be part of escrow while they stay at badgerDAO contributors maybe? Any other idea? I´d like to contribute to this project, my personal info was shared with Ingalandia by email but neved had an answer (I offered my spanish translation and project management skills). Hoping to still have a room for me here :slight_smile:

To bring a little perspective, in the last 4 weeks 2.4 million Badger tokens were distributed through the liquidity mining program.
The grant program accounts for 0.68% of that value.
Add that number to the fact that an average contributor is more likely to keep his/her Badger than an average farmer.

So if you’re concerned about the potential selling pressure coming from the contributors, there’s not much to worry about.
If all contributors sold their Badger, it would affect the price by 1%. Compare that to a 20-40% daily price change that is standard for Badger.

Badger is a governance token, so having grants in Badger means increasing the contributors’ weight in governance by default.

Putting a vesting schedule on these tokens would mean that contributors:
a) can’t choose to stake or LP their tokens
b) can’t vote with their tokens


around $200,000 worth of badger was given at current value to around 40 people. As long as the performance of the vaults and adoption grows because of these contributors then it is money well spent. But in any case it would be nice to review reductions in this budget in case productivity isn’t being actually met from contributors. Just a thought that I think would be nice to consider.