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 @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.
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.
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