BIP 75. Emissions: migration to ibBTC/sBTC Convex Sett

Category: Emissions.

Scope: Badger and cvxCRV Emissions for six weeks between November 18 - December 30, a Badger migration rebate airdrop.


  • Consolidate Badger emissions on the ibBTC/sBTC Sett:
    • Use the unallocated rewards from the current schedule (39k Badger)
    • Reallocate Badger rewards from other Setts (94.8k Badger)
    • Distribute a part of ibBTC Sett emissions pro-rata for the duration of the schedule (from 49% to 20%).
  • Increase bveCVX Sett rewards for the rest of Q4:
    • Add 5% targeted Badger APR
    • Add 10,000 weekly cvxCRV emissions
  • To offset the migration costs, do an airdrop (up to 25k Badger):
    • 10 Badger to all addresses that mint ibBTC and then deposit ibBTC/sBTC LP into the app
    • 5 Badger to current users with non-native balance >$0 who deposit ibBTC/sBTC LP into the app


With the upcoming ibBTC/sBTC pool launch on Curve + Convex, the goal is for it to become the largest Bitcoin pool in all of DeFi.

As ibBTC is strategically more beneficial to the DAO than any other BTC asset, this will be the primary pool for the DAO to support the underlying yield with its CVX voting power, so it makes sense to consolidate the Badger rewards on it.

Ideally, we’d like to convert as many Sett deposits into ibBTC as possible, make the migration smooth, and attract new users to the app.

Currently, the DAO voting power can support a 10%+ APR on a 1 $bn pool, and to capture as much of that liquidity as possible in the app, we need to adjust the emissions schedule.

Since the withdrawal fee reduction in BIP 72, it is especially important to concentrate Badger TVL on pools with higher underlying yields, because the lion’s share of the DAO’s revenue is supposed to come from performance fees now.

With the ibBTC/sBTC Sett, a higher TVL capture in the app also means that the DAO will lock more CRV and CVX and will have the opportunity to boost bveCVX Sett yield further with the cvxCRV distribution from the fees.

Not reallocating Badger rewards to a very large pool that earns a lot of CVX & CRV would mean that incentives would be misaligned. Users who deposited into the most beneficial Sett for the DAO would receive noticeably lower Badger rewards than users who keep their funds in smaller Setts with low underlying APR.


Emission schedule changes.

The proposed changes are the following:

  1. Add the unallocated rewards from the current schedule to the ibBTC Sett (39k Badger total)

  2. Reallocate Badger rewards to ibBTC/sBTC pool from other Setts (94.8k Badger total):
    a. 100% from all Convex BTC Setts: renBTC, sBTC, tBTC, hBTC, bBTC, pBTC, oBTC
    b. 100% from byWBTC, WBTC/ETH Sushi on Ethereum and Arbitrum, ibBTC/WBTC on Sushi.
    Once the rewards are reallocated, the Setts would continue to function and would stop being counted towards non-native balance in the Badger Boost calculation.
    c. 50% from Tricrypto and mStable Setts on Ethereum
    d. 50% from renBTC and Tricrypto Setts on Arbitrum

  3. Add rewards to bveCVX Sett:
    a. Target 15% instead of 10% Badger APR
    b. Increase cvxCRV rewards that go to the Sett from 10,000 to 20,000 per week.

I suggest distributing a part of ibBTC rewards pro-rata (from 49% to 20% over six weeks). This structure tries to maximize the Curve pool capture in the app with the help of both old and new users.

Here’s how the new schedule would look:

BadgerDAO Q4 Emissions BIP 75

And here’s the sheet.

Badger Airdrop to offset the migration costs.

There’s been a lot of feedback in the #rff channel about the migration being costly, and to offset that, I suggest doing a Badger airdrop:

  1. 10 Badger for all addresses that mint ibBTC and then deposit ibBTC/sBTC Curve LP into the app
  2. 5 Badger to current users with a non-native balance above $0 who deposit ibBTC/sBTC Curve LP into the app

The program would reserve up to 25,000 Badger for the airdrop, which should be more than enough. But if we go out of budget, the priority would be given to existing depositors.

There would be a two-week migration period after the BIP passes, and then the rebate would be distributed through the Badger tree together with the other Badger rewards, so users wouldn’t need to claim it separately.


The schedule change will happen on the day of the ibBTC/sBTC Convex Sett launch. The current ETA on that is November 18.

Approve the Emissions schedule change and the migration rebate.
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

first. #weeksnotmonths

What happens if there are more claims than the 25,000 badger supports in the migration program? Is there some priority, first come first serve, water down rewards? How? A lack of clarity here during the gitcoin airdrop created months of discontent.

Can we also provide a deadline for when users can expect their migration bonus. Maybe in under 4 weeks after the 2 week period or something? These are important details.


“The priority would be given to existing depositors” in practice means that all current users will get their 5 or 10 Badger airdrop.

There are 1980 addresses with non-native balance above 0$, so even if every single one of them minted ibBTC and deposited ibBTC/sBTC into the app, the budget would cover it.

So, for example, in the case where we have:

  • 1,000 current users mint ibBTC and deposit (= 10k Badger)
  • 500 current users just deposit (= 2.5k Badger)
  • 1,500 new users who mint & deposit ibBTC/sBTC Lp (= 15k Badger)

12.5k Badger would be given to the current users (10 & 5 Badger each).
And 12.5k that’s left would be split between 1,500 new users, so each would receive 8.33 Badger instead of 10.

I assume that the distribution will take much less than 4 weeks, but if you think it’s needed, sure, let’s establish a deadline on December 31.

1 Like


Easy vote. Snapshot it.

1 Like

Lack of clarity and rushed releases and completely turn around the strategy is the name of the game apparently.
I would have never migrated all my Setts to Arbitrum if I knew this was going to happen. I was rekt by withdrawal fees, gas fees, bridge fees, and now you are cutting my rewards by 50%. Thank you very much.


The #rff has been open for 5 days. There has been an opportunity to discuss Arbitrum rewards in depth there, to provide an alternative and a justification for that alternative.

As I’ve mentioned in the #rff, Arbitrum [and mStable] users have been receiving noticeably higher rewards than other Badger users. So I would assume that the Arbitrum migration has been worth it for most users compared to keeping their funds on Ethereum. And there’s a decent chance that they will continue to receive higher rewards with the change too.

For example, last time I checked Tricrypto Sett was getting 20x higher average Badger APR than renBTC and tBTC on Ethereum.

So the change would cut that premium from 20x to 10x.

iirc you were promoting using a dynamic emissions system during the Q4 BIP. Well, if we were using that, the emissions on Arbitrum would be reduced sooner, while a more manual governance process can allow for them to stay afloat for longer.

In any case, no one has suggested: “let’s keep Q4 emissions on renBTC Sett on Arbitrum because x, y, z” and have done a sentiment check on it.

1 Like

In favour, though I doubt the airdrop will cover gas fees on the 18th. I’m looking at around 6 transactions to migrate from tricrypto I think.
Would you consider launching ibBTC/sBTC on the weekend?

What happens to the ibBTC/WBTC pool on Sushi, and will you migrate to the new ibBTC pool on CRV ?


@w4rd The expectation is that CRV and CVX rewards will start flowing on November 18, so it’s crucial to have the Sett live by then.

@CedarCoin You mean will the DAO migrate users’ funds from ibBTC/WBTC SLP to ibBTC/sBTC on Curve? No, there are no such plans, that type of migration would be significantly more complicated than Curve → Convex migration where it were the same Curve LP tokens that migrated.

I also remember you being a promotor of stable emissions and saying that depositors need to have a known 3 month schedule so they can plan accordingly. But then 5 minutes later it turns out that they don’t because Badger is completely changing strategies. Oh, yes but “we will compensate the ones that move”. I guess that will be true for people that are on Ethereum, not for Arbitrum, even when they are being affected as well.

The motivation of the BIP is very clear and in other circumstances it would have had my full support.

Badger is full of good ideas and great people and community, but a complete lack of structure and planning. Seems like doing trial and error. This is why a few weeks ago you were releasing as many vaults as possible (hBTC, oBTC, pBTC) and now want to get rid of all of them (it makes more sense, I agree, but again, you are doing the exact opposite just a few weeks later). I even don’t get why you released the mstable vaults - even those are getting affected and were released like 2 seconds ago.

Same with multi-chain boost. A few days after announcing it, you decided it was not “scalable” and decided to do the complete opposite: single-chain boost.

In reality, Badger can only work on Ethereum because you are leveraging Convex and that’s pretty much it. Then you shouldn’t have had released Arbitrum (or BSC or Matic). I remember the days when Spadaboom was talking about a “multichain” vision and bla bla bla…

BTW I also don’t see the point of keeping the forums if BIPs are being discussed on Discord. Just do one or the other, have a signal vote in the discord and move on to snapshot. I don’t engage in your RFFs (personal ones, I may participate in other RFFs) because whenever I’ve done it, you answer something completely different, missing the context, so clearly you don’t want to continue the conversation.

Badger Airdrop to offset the migration costs.

I do think there should be a third category for those stuck in oBTC/pBTC Setts since those will not be eligible to mint ibBTC. For those users they will have to:

Withdraw from badger (fee + gas), withdraw from curve (gas), bridge back to btc (fee + gas), bridge back to badger (fee + gas), mint ibBTC (gas), deposit ibBTC to curve (gas), depsoit to ibBTC sett (gas). or withdraw from oBTC/pBTC in sbtcCrv and then deposit into the factory pool, then badger.

As I mentioned on Discord I need to decide if going straight to convex is going to be better for me as I know the direction they are going in and don’t have to worry about changes like this every couple months to @cryptomooniac 's point.

Some incentive should be given towards these users who want to stay in the badger ecosystem.

1 Like

I also remember you being a promotor of stable emissions and saying that depositors need to have a known 3 month schedule so they can plan accordingly.

I was and I still am, but it’s a balancing act between flexibility and stability. One of the main arguments that I made back then was around 0.5% withdrawal fee, which now got reduced 5x.
Reducing the wd fee should allow for some more flexibility in that balance.
But if we reduce the wd fee without switching to a strategy that’s based on underlying yield + tvl, it means that we’re shooting for minimal revenue of the DAO.

Emitting Badger to 10 different Setts with 0-2% APR isn’t a viable strategy, so the migration would need to happen sooner or later.
The best moment to perform that migration is with ibBTC/sBTC pool launch on Convex, and hence the strategic decision to change the schedule is presented to the community and the token holders.

ibBTC/sBTC Sett is the Sett that we can expect to have that commitment, as the DAO can affect both its underlying and its Badger yield. This isn’t the case with other Setts, especially as Badger has a relatively low Curve pool capture in them and can’t affect the yield there cost-efficiently at this point.

Overall, to me it’s not about committing to no change at all, but rather about committing to no change without the governance.

lack of structure and planning. This is why a few weeks ago you were releasing as many vaults as possible (hBTC, oBTC, pBTC) and now want to get rid of all of them (it makes more sense, I agree, but again, you are doing the exact opposite just a few weeks later).

This is not true, the circumstances have changed drastically for the new Setts. When the Setts were added in the summer, they had a great underlying yield because Convex voted for them by default.
When Convex switched to CVX voting in September, the APR switched to minimal, and Badger ended up being the only interested party in voting for Bitcoin yields on Curve. Should we have planned for that in June?

Still, the Setts have been receiving the rewards with minimal underlying yield for 7 out of 13 weeks of the new schedule. Same with Arbitrum and mStable Setts, which failed to attract enough TVL to get closer to the other Setts cost-efficiency wise.

So all things considered, to me it balances itself out for users, especially as withdrawal fees got reduced drastically. And there’s gotta be some cost-efficiency adjustments, which by the way we had before too (hBTC+bBTC halving during Q3 schedule, for example).

Same with multi-chain boost. A few days after announcing it, you decided it was not “scalable” and decided to do the complete opposite: single-chain boost.

Boost was switched to single chain because it turned out to be not technically viable to do multi-chain Boost because of Arbitrum infrastructure issues. And the context was very clear there, the Boost would either work smoothly with a single chain version, or would continuously have hiccups with a multi-chain version.

It’s not the lack of structure and planning, it’s the ability to adapt to ever-changing conditions.

I don’t engage in your RFFs

There are at least two sides to the communication process.

When the feedback is constructive and specific, it’s easy to transform it into an actionable item. When it’s a vague complaint, there’s usually not much to take from it unless it’s something that we receive a lot.

If you wanted something specific changed about the schedule, you could have posted your suggestion in the #rff - that’s what rffs are for, to fine tune the proposals before they go to the BIP stage, to try to reach a higher degree of consensus if some aspects of the BIP are contentious.


Any plans to migrate the Convex BTC Setts: renBTC, sBTC, tBTC sets to ibBTC/sBTC Convex set ?

with no more awards to ibBTC/wBTC nor Convex BTC sets you are forcing consolidating of all BTC deposits into that set, at a great migration cost to users.

1 Like

No, there are no such plans, as it would imply trading and switching the underlying assets in the vaults, and it should be users’ choice.
So the plan in that regard is to have the Sett op-in, and a Badger migration rebate after.