All the complexities that were introduced to the emission plan so far have straightforward reasons behind them:
Make Badger benefit from DIGG success
Make DIGG a better product
Extend liquidity mining program
In my mind, the benefits from introducing strong economic incentives in these directions far outweigh the deterring effects they might have on the newcomers. Plus to a large extent, those can be solved by the UI.
Having separate emission schedules wouldn’t support Badger holders.
The current schedule does put a direct financial interest behind Badger staying on par with DIGG.
The fact that APYs might be hard to calculate doesn’t mean that they’re not there or don’t work.
Also, regarding the complexity, I project that it will only increase with time.
In particular, the community seems to be fond of having increased rewards when you lock your liquidity.
Another desirable thing is to receive bonuses for holding NFTs.
Add that to already introduced Badger Boost.
Those are all emission distribution mechanics, so complexities there most likely don’t present existential threats for the money that is held in Badger Setts
We reduce emissions for all investors, not just the small ones. And small investors who hold Badger will on average benefit more from the Badger Boost.
@Devin I think there will be emissions on launch, can’t say for sure at which schedule.
The price stabilization Setts are likely to come into play somewhere in the future, but it will take time to develop them.
So far our go-to at price stabilization is the PEG based emissions, which will probably have a strong effect and are easier to implement after launch.
But those too will not be active from launch, it will take a little time to enact them.
I agree with the time based incentives. We want as many people as possible involved with this project who may spread the word around, with time based incentives that give people more reason to stay on board. I do feel that this will happen as the use cases for the DAO’s coins grow, however even now we should still be as welcoming as possible.
This is brilliant @Mr_Po. I can imagine that we may have to adjust the GDIGG badger ratio as the emissions cap goes down and markets conditions change, but this gives us awesome levers to experiment with and understand. Nice work!!!
We have to wait a month, and see what happens, and think/talk about how these models effect the economics of the whole system. After we see what happens, @Mr_Po and other economics minded people can write some blog posts. From that some systems guys can write some blog posts that redefine that in a way that blockchain geeks can understand. Then some “tech-translators” like myself can figure out how to write blog posts, which explains it in a way the majority of the Badger community can understand.
When Yearn started, it was with the slogan “Few Understand.” Badger isn’t about the Few, but there are still cool things to do that not many understand.
Rebasing tokens are basically experiments in printing money, and this seems like a really creative and well thought out way of trying to manage all that. Let’s see what happens, work with the levers we have if it makes sense, try something different if it doesn’t.
DeFi is still in its infancy. Now is the time to try crazy shit. If Badger can become a community that ingests that knowledge and spreads it to the many, we will be unstoppable.
This is good stuff. Let’s try it and see what happens
I don’t think we will see what happens with this BIP in a month, because at the pace we are at, by then we might have two additional BIP further adjusting the model.
Everything in DeFi (including rebasing tokens) is an experiment. However when you do an experiment, you need to be very clear what is the desired outcome, and then work backwards (adjust the model accordingly with what you want to achieve). There will always be unforeseen things and while you cannot possibly think of them all, you need to be very careful and try to consider everything you can.
I do have a lot of confidence in the team and I trust they are doing this very carefully, this is why I am supporting it.
Thank you. I understand the reasons, and I just hope all moving parts are being thoughtfully considered (the model just shows emissions per week and you can play with different prices - it is very interesting - but does not how everything will work together).
I also sincerely hope that the UI is adjusted accordingly. Today, apparently, we still have multipliers (I don’t think BIP 24 has been implemented yet). Yet a lot of people don’t know that and the UI doesn’t show.
I didn’t say that there is no evolution. I didn’t say that those changes are bad (otherwise I would have voted against, not for). As I have mentioned repeatedly, I have confidence in the team and in general, I am really excited about the direction the project is moving.
I did say, however that there have been major significant changes in only two weeks, that are adding complexity and a lot of moving parts. The proposals show individual models but not how they will work together, and there is very little information on implementation.
For example, it seems that BIP 24 will be implemented after launching DIGG and not before (this was mentioned in the Discord). So we are launching first, and then, a few days later, we are adjusting the rewards by implementing BIP 24. Then you will implement BIP 26, changing other parameters (which also affect the rewards). Then a boost will be implemented for NFT holders but it is not clear when and how it will work (for example if you already have maximum Badger boost, do you still get additional APR for holding the NFT)? The models shown in BIP 24 do not include this NFT boost (nor the proposal itself that was approved in the snapshot).
The emission plan essentially covers the budget we have for liquidity mining for the next 6 months.
As for the Badger Boost, NFT rewards, and potential locking rewards, their implementation doesn’t necessarily have to affect this budget.
Most likely they are going to be implemented on a zero-sum basis in terms of emissions.
Meaning that if someone receives more APY for holding NFTs, someone else receives a bit less.
And the same can be done with most other changes, including adjusting parameters in the emissions model.
I agree that it might be not evident how all the changes work together, so it might be hard for the governance to choose some parameters. But the good thing is we can always adjust these parameters based on new data so that the overall model would be more cohesive.
We just need to visualize all the relevant metrics and parameters and setup dashboards so people can analyse what we have and understand how everything interacts… I’d imagine this is a few hours/days of playing with Dune by one of the many people in our community who are into this kind of analysis.
If the dashboards can be setup to show your thinking/flow/the relationships we expect, it will help people learn/understand how it all works and make them better voters when it comes to thinking about these models in the future.
I’m finding it increasingly difficult to visualize a model going forward. The 3 part BIP 26, combined with BIP 24 and NFT/Levels is something that could really use a good infographic. Specifically, how they all work together.
Add in Digg, which is a complete wild card in this space…things are going to move very fast. While I believe that a lot of your thought put into the token/emission mechanics are sound, I’m concerned that it may be too much all at once (even over a couple of weeks)