BIP 28: Badger Grants Program

See grant applications here: The Council of Badgers: Results are in! | by Badger DAO 🦡 | Mar, 2021 | Medium

To be uploaded onto main website in next iteration.

Category: Governance

Scope: Introduce for discussion and refinement the proposed initial parameters for the grants program.

Objective: Ultimately, to establish how Badger will move forward in accepting, vetting, and approving proposals for grants.

Status: accepted


Badger is preparing the official launch of its grants program. This post lays out the building blocks for this program as follows:

  1. what kinds of proposals Badger is awarding grants,
  2. the criteria for a grant award,
  3. the steps for submission along with links to relevant submission forms, and
  4. the process by which grants will be awarded, including decision-making structure.


Types of Grants

With $700m TVL, Badger is expanding at a fast clip, so we are looking forward to hearing about your proposals that help build out or improve Badger’s ecosystem and further its community. Having said this, the broad buckets that grants fall under are as follows:

1. Ecosystem Grants

2. Governance Grants

  • Who? Individuals or teams interested in contributing to the Badger infrastructure as a whole (exclusive of development/coding).

  • What? Governance grants are awarded for proposals related to the broader infrastructure of Badger. This can range from arguments for how community consensus and decision-making is executed to implementable concepts for Badger’s economic tools and structures.

  • How much? [50-1,000 $BADGER]

  • Where? Proposals presently are posted to under Badger Improvement Proposals (BIPs). The process for BIPs (from submission to voting to ratification and implementation) can be found here.

3. Community Grants

  • Who? Badgers like you!

  • What? Community grants are awarded based on nomination to individuals who have contributed to Badger’s community by way of content creation, community support and contribution, or generally being an edifying member of the Badger community.

  • How much? [5-500 $BADGER]

  • Where? Submission form to be released after BIP approval.

4. Referral Grants

  • Who? Individuals.

  • What? Referral grants are awarded to individuals who successfully refer a potential new team member or a potential partnership opportunity for Badger.

  • How much? [10% of monthly grant payments up to twelve (12) months. Referral paid out for two (2) months, after two (2) months of solid performance, and on a monthly basis thereafter for up to twelve (12) months total.]

  • Where? Submission form to be released after BIP approval.

What Badger Is Looking For

While this program is flexible and open-ended, project objectives and types of initiatives we would most like to see are those that further the mission of BadgerDAO and further the sustainability of the DAO itself. Generally, our highest priority is building the products and infrastructure necessary to accelerate Bitcoin as collateral across other blockchains. See additional information below.

Grant Criteria

Above all, Badger is interested in proposals that carry the spirit of its community-minded mission. Grants will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Does it further Badger?
    – Relevance to BadgerDAO
    – Potential impact on Badger and its community
    – What benefit is offered to Badger, BadgerDAO, and its community
  • What is the likelihood of success?
  • For Ecosystem Grants, level of current development/progress (e.g., concept-only, in-progress, already completed)
  • For Governance Grants, compatibility of proposal with Badger’s existing protocols and structure
  • For Referral Grants, compatibility of the referred individual, team, or partnership with Badger and potential for a fruitful collaboration
  • This question will not be applicable to Community Grants as they are generally nominations for contributions that have already taken place
  • The team and how likely they are to deliver
  • How solid is the proposal’s potential?
    – Is it feasible?
    – Does the end result have staying power as Badger continues to grow?
    – Are there competing proposals, and how do they compare?
  • How will the funds from the grant be used?

Proposal Process

For Ecosystem grants, submissions will be reviewed as they come in and feasibility will be discussed between core team and applicants, For all other grants, after submission of the related form, please also post your proposal in the Discord (link TBD after BIP approval) so that the Badger community has access to your proposal for voting purposes.


We’d like to establish understanding and agreement to the framework set forth in this BIP, and we’re excited to propose this significant step in opening a more formalized opportunity for badgers of all stripes, not just developers, to get involved in growing Badger and are looking forward to your submissions!

After this juncture, we must begin the process of electing council members, determining allocation of funds for each grant category, and codifying submission forms and the detailed evaluation rubrics for each grant type. Please note that this BIP does not include grants for long-term/core contributors; this will be decided by separate discussions. These points outlined in this paragraph will take place over the coming days/weeks.


Thank you for putting this together @j.audefi.

The website is not allowing me to enter a poll into the thread, so folks - please use this poll below

Do you approve of the Badger Grants Program?
  • For
  • Against

0 voters


I voted against the proposal above for the following reasons:

  1. I still would like to see revenue (our basket of currencies) used to pay contributors to the badger ecosystem, not just badger governance tokens which have no monetary value.

  2. I think, in general, grants are not a good incentive for production. How do you value the work of a contribution? By the revenue it generates? By the good it provides the community? What is the monetary figure on that? Instead, I think having a detailed breakdown from those in charge of the treasury for how we value different contributions would help the community make informed decisions on grant proposals.


$1b already yo badger.


I think this BIP is very well designed and explained as a general framework, so I voted for.

However, I believe that all grants to be given to any individual, should be proposed by the core team after internal discussion using this framework as a guideline. They should also propose the amount they do consider that should be granted and then submit this for governance vote (which should include a summary of the contribution and why the core team is proposing this amount).

In general I will vote for in such cases, following the advice of the core team, unless something is really wrong in which case there will be an argument and discussion.

Finally, I’ve seen a lot of BIPs being moved to snapshot without considering the feedback given in the forums by the community - even after some members of the core team have replied and agreed to such feedback. I think we should improve on that, of course we also should avoid endless discussions but the good positive feedback, that will make the BIP better, should be considered before moving it to snapshot.


I could not vote for this proposal in its entirety. Most of it I don’t have a problem with; however, some of the points seem a bit excessive. My real problem is with number 4. While I support a referral program, the continuous payout beyond the initial payout seems a bit unnecessary and redundant. I have more than 25 years in hiring, headhunting and the IT field. While it is common practice to offer referral bonuses, paying a recurring bonus seems to be throwing away capital and frankly, adds little value. I agree that the referral bonus should be delayed for two months pending the satisfactory performance and contribution of the referred resource.


Grants are good. It will help the community. But I think investment is a better and more market approach, more conducive to the continuous development of the community. Investing will be more risk, but we can use DAISO( which reduces the risk.

I agree with you, however I don’t think that is the spirit. The way I understand it, is that the total referral grant, instead of being paid in full after 2 months, will be paid in installments (up to 12) depending on how well it works. I support this idea, because a partnership that could go sideways after 3 months and add lot less value than expected.

1 Like

Understood; however, I still think the indicated funds are overkill. I would feel more comfortable with a fixed amount, a specific $ value as opposed to a percentage of a floating value correlated to what we hope is an appreciating value token. This floating value means that say a candidate with a junior skillset is referred when the price of Badger is high. He may be somewhat beneficial to the project. Now lets take you finding a uberly skilled dev when the price is low. you would have initially given more to the recipient for a less skilled and impactful person. This isn’t representative or fair allotment to the referrers based on the impact that the referred will have in correlation to the reward. Maybe I am overthinking it but I believe in being equitable.


You are completely right about this and I fully agree with what you say.

I do hope the core team takes this feedback and share their points of view, before moving into snapshot. This would be healthy and beneficial.

1 Like

@j.audefi This is a very well thought out and documented BIP that I think everyone in the community can read and understand. Bravo!!! There is a lot of great feedback in the replies of this BIP. I agree it would make sense to think about it all a bit and maybe revise the BIP and check back in. I don’t think this one is super super urgent to pass.

Some feedback about changes that could be made based on the comments below:

Part of receving a bounty in Badger is about being exposed to the price fluctuations/being vested in badger being good. If ones get told one will get 1000 badger for a bounty, spend a month doing it, and then get it, it is quite unclear how much money one will actually receive,.

A few simple suggestions as to how to change this proposal:

1: lower the min on gov grants down to 10 badger so we could also give an award to someone who spent a few hours putting together a BIP that passed.
2: Agree to reassess the badger thresholds per grant type on a quarterly basis.
3: Set a min and max USD amount per badger along with said threashold, and if the price of badger is above or below that price, pay out badger to = badger. Then adjust the badger paid out if this threashhold is broken.
For example let’s say this quarter we set the badger threshhold form 15-35 and a grant is for 100 badger. If badger is at <15 on the day of the payout, the bounty hunter should be paid 10015=1500 USD in badger. If badger moons and is at 100, the bounty hunter would be paid 10035=3500 USD in badger. I thin this makes it more clear to everyone the risk inherent in being paid in badger and helps everyone somehow.

On another note, for those who want to see us use treasury money. We could agree to pay out bounties in USD stable if badger is under the min price (to keep our badger for a better day).


I definitely support the grants program, things like this help the protocol evolve.

This is a great BIP write up and I like the different categories. However I think the payouts should be in a specific USD amount of badger. Otherwise you have teams getting payed wildly different amounts for similar work just based on what the price is at the time they are payed. Some people, especially full-time developers would need to sell their badger as they are paid for living expenses and would maybe getting paid extremely well one month but not so good the next. At the very least have a mechanism to change the amounts once a month or so. Another idea is to give the grant recipient the option to be paid either way; in a specific amount of badger or usd amount of badger at time of payment.


Completely agree with the above points, however, if the proposal moves to snapshot as is I will vote in support. Never allow perfection to become the enemy of progress.

1 Like

Instead of just criticizing the method, could you please provide an alternative? I believe the current system of a 2 month “trial period” or “cliff” with installments paid over the subsequent 10 months is to prevent 1 lump sum salary payment running the risk of someone quitting early or failing to perform. I’m not exactly sure what you’re “problem” is with the current method proposed just based on your comments.

You have 25+ years in hiring and headhunting, so you should know that typical commissions run 15-25% and even up to 50% of first year salary. Do you think our 10% makes sense? or is it too low?


I was not “just criticizing” and pointed out specific items that I took issue with in relation to the proposal. I am in agreement with the fact that the referral should be parceled out in conjunction with specified periods of performance. The way that the proposal is worded indicates that you were paying an individual 10% of monthly grants payments for up to 12 months. This is high as it is worded. If you intent is to rather imply that you would pay a fixed payment spaced out over that period, I would support that. It is all about the wording and interpretation. As I indicated previously. Please read the comments above to gain more understanding and clarification of what I actually said.

I think 10% does not truly say what you would be paying without knowing 10% of what. That was what I needed clarification on.

1 Like

10% of salary/grant payments.

First 2 months as trial, if 2 months are approved, then 10% of 2 months paid then.

Each month thereafter 10% for up to 10 additional months for a total of 12 months from initial start date.

See BIPs for grants 1 and 2 as example.

1 Like

OK. Thank you. But this I believe is too much. I think total of 10% spread out over 12 months is acceptable. Not 10% each of the months.

It seems you’re the only one with this opinion. I believe what you’re suggesting is incredibly low. When looking at industry standards, this is what I find.

I’ve also spoken with my colleagues that are head hunters in New York, and 10% is low. As of now, we will move forward with this BIP as it has received quorum.