Correct me if I misunderstand. These strategic partners would give us usdc for the badger that we would then put in Aave and they would also deposit btc in our setts? Also who are these partners?
Let me be clear about something. I definitely support treasury diversification through strategic partnerships, that create value. And the Badger Backstop fund is a great idea as well.
I also support adopting a Barbell Investment Strategy as it makes the most sense. However it requires thorough risk management and is labor intensive. This BIP is just an outline and does not mention specifics regarding how it would be managed or by whom.
Furthermore, It does not provide enough information about the Badger Backstop and does not outline what a “strategic partner” is. What are the requisites an interested party should meet in order to be considered “strategic”?
So, as much as I support the idea around this BIP and as much as I trust and support the Badger team and want them to have enough flexibility to take decisions (governance should not get on the way and should not stop evolution and innovation), I think in this case it gives too much leeway to be honest. This is the reason I cannot fully support it the way it is currently redacted, and voting against.
However, if some precisions can be made, better defining risk management aspects, more details regarding the Badger Backstop fund and a basic criteria for a partner to be considered “strategic”, I would gladly change my vote.
If we adopt the Barbell strategy, treasury swaps are not as attractive, as we would swap one non-stable asset to another.
Also, if we swap treasuries with a partner, it means that we can’t spend this money.
You’re right of course, we could earn with them however. As I said, this route would be much more challenging in terms of time and very likely, success vs. taking on investors and gaining what they have to immediately offer.
It’s something I would like to see considered on even a small scale, if for no other reason than a sign of solidarity.
@mason I think it would be helpful to the community if you could provide a model that includes the data from your previous BIP 31. Will help to show a larger picture of actionable plans.
The goal of this proposal gives a slight discount for a large USDC investment, assets that will be held by the DAO and could be used for anything that can be constructively proposed and passes voting.
We aren’t giving and they aren’t outsiders to the crypto community.
There are a lot of things coming down the pipeline, we need to get better at communicating where they are and we’re working on it. The execution of this proposal is a medium lift but doesn’t constrain devs. Further, regardless of whether or not a bear market is here or not we should act like an Organization that will weather a bear market.
I’m fully on board with this, especially the part about a DAO coalition. The cap on this BIP was set where it is to act as that, a cap, what you’re proposing, a more protocol to protocol type of deal flow, could easily fall into this. Getting a public conversation going around this, and what the DAO is looking for in partners, is a good step.
Yes, those deposits could later be used in the interest of the DAO to build a Badger Backstop security fund. Aave is just a safe way for those assets to be stored and earn interest until a further framework is brought forth. You would be familiar with the partners.
That is why I said begin adopting, and from our perspective, holding native assets of Badger and partner protocols on one end and synthetic fiat positions on the other end is the balance we have to play with, I’m happy for any specific ideas surrounding using barbell as I’d love to expand on it.
Expect more on Badger Backstop in the next 2 weeks, anyone reading please feel free to reach out if you’d like to have constructive conversation around what the best backstop for badgers could be. In terms of strategic partners, they’re individuals (or groups) in crypto that have voiced a desire to have a stake in BadgerDAO’s success through holding Badger and depositing or LPing ~$500K minimum assets. In return the DAO can tap into a broader array of experts across fields, like @Justsomeguy mentioned above, the DAO can only benefit from pooling resources when it comes to regulatory and legal.
Good call. Fyi here’s a quick overview of the One Time Diversification event, note that this is revenue assets. What’s being discussed here is Treasury assets. I’ll work on putting together a better picture of our Treasury Assets, I believe you are right that having some more insight into that would be helpful
Thanks for all the effort you have put into this.
RE: treasury diversification, insurance fund, and barbell strategy- great. However this is an odd way to begin a post with a central proposition that is really about allowing venture capitalists to purchase badger at a discounted price. This should be multiple BIPs in my opinion. In politics they call this pork barreling.
Without knowing more details such as what value a specific investor can bring and what kind of deal they are to be given- I vote no. There is not enough information here.
If there is a big push for this, perhaps let them come forward with a ‘term sheet’ of sorts and let the DAO decide if they are worthy of discounted badger or if they should purchase on the open market. Could be an interesting experiment. Badger is a fairly launched project, and I haven’t seen anything in this post that would make me want to vote to end that.
Thanks @mason - more comments:
The assets for both ends of the strategy are clear and fully understood. However, it is not a passive strategy. It needs to be actively managed / monitored. It might require rolling over assets, hedging and other strategies to properly manage the risk. So I’d love you to expand on this.
It is difficult to me to vote for an investment strategy just by name but without knowing how it will be executed (at least the parameters or the framework). Every company has an investment policy and that gives a framework for the investment manager to execute.
I thought that the creation of the Badger Backstop fund was part of this BIP (since it is mentioned). So if we are voting to create one, then we need to have an understanding how it will work. If this is to be discussed and then voted in a future BIP I am OK with that, but then we shall clarify it so there are no misunderstandings.
Perhaps the amount of btc they provide should be in proportion to how much badger they are buying. Not 1:1 necessarily I guess we would need an idea of the amount they were thinking of. There should be a minimum amount of time they need to lp or stake as well, BUT I also don’t think they should be allowed to deposit until after the 22 week emissions are over. If they deposit before then they would be taking away rewards from little guys that have been staking and lping here since the beginning.
I’m for this general framework but will we be voting on each deal? I want to know the terms of the agreements. How did yearn and others approach this?
Thank you @mason for the lack of response.
Thank you @DefiFrog again for not following your own rules.
I get that “during the early stages of expansion, we may move with greater agility” but this is getting ridiculous. Governance discussions and answering questions from the community should matter even if a BIP already has majority support. But apparently the team thinks differently.
Uploading: 16136033765432310049777166347102.jpg… 那句话怎么处理后面步骤进入火币钱包后不知道怎么操作
I don’t believe this changes the fundamental values of the fair launch. As mentioned, any of these actors could market buy. Some won’t pass vetting and that’s what they’ll do. The hope is that those we can bring in will create real value add for the DAO. You have my pledge, which may not be worth much on the internet but I’m still making it, that no partner will be brought in that doesn’t have the long term health of the DAO in mind.
Totally agree on this and would love to discuss further, if you have any specific resources in mind as we go about designing and developing the DAO’s investment, please do share, my DMs are open.
This is the creation of the Backstop, but for now it will just be fiat, sitting in an account and earning interest. If you have a productive idea for how to begin structuring it further, again I’m all ears and will be working on this very near term.
Totally agree here. I’ll personally be monitoring this and if any numbers don’t make sense I will clearly communicate that as my belief. Unfortunately preventing from staking presents some more difficulties, if you have more of an idea around how to frame this please comment or DM and I’ll do my best to make sure it’s included.
The plan right now is to do one at a time. I personally would also want to know this, but given sensitivities around how deals go down it’s difficult to do on a DAO. Expect after action reporting. And as always, we want to refine everything we do. So any and all constructive ideas around how to further improve our processes and systems, I’m here for.
I’m sorry mooniac, I’m still exiting my day job, already gave notice, but I’m still managing a lot of work right now. I’ve just gotten the chance to come on the forum for the day. That probably proves your next point as well, that we should have BIPs up for a longer time. Would you mind putting together a BIP on this? It can be quick, just outline your recommendations for how we do this moving forward, happy to help if you get the core of your recommendations down. We should start a conversation around this as it’s another step on the journey towards being a full DAO.
Thank you for your regular participation in these discussions, Badger would be well off if we had 1000 more that pay as much attention as you.
Thank you for the detailed responses. Unfortunately, I did vote against the BIP already. I was a little surprised to see it move to snapshot so quickly. My hope was that it would have been voted against and there would be more discussion. I am FOR requiring a minimum discussion time before an item can be moved to snapshot. It is nice to see the different perspectives and the evolving discussions that end up taking place. We need time for more people to read through everything and have a chance to provide useful input.
Agree with @cryptomooniac and @Yenom that these bips need to be discussed for a minimum time before snapshot. I have been traveling the last couple days and haven’t had much time to follow. I’m sure most people have careers and families that demand a lot of their time. Do we really need a bip for this? Isn’t the 5 day minimum in the bip guidelines already as @cryptomooniac said? This isn’t the first time this has happened either.
Also I will ask again can we please have snapshots announced on Twitter as well? We need more governance engagement.
I hardly ever post on these things, just vote. But honestly the BadgerDAO community reeks of entitlement sometimes, and it’s extremely apparent in this thread. Some of you have some utopian vision of what a DAO “should be” in your eyes, and need to wake up. The autonomy the DAO has provided so far is more or less the same as other DAO’s within the sector, and I’d go so far as to say the team have been EXTREMELY patient with the communities demands and incessant whining on a weekly basis.
Not that everyone is whining, but it’s a small group of people who are constantly making loud noises.
lol i am newbie but this is hilarious because i was reading the governance process lol people are such crybabies forum is to discuss proposals and if you dont like people discussing you just vote and no one cares hahahaha