Agree… Small CAP and no locking. Let the people who want to sell, sell and go away. We can weed them out. A lot of people who are opting for bigger cap are only looking at cashing on the airdrop. It doesn’t help DIGG at least initially. Imagine CAP falling from 130M to 10M. New investors will run away.
5 Likes
Happy to see that recent answers show more reflexion. It seems that there is not clear answer (to the vote) yet. And still a lot of question to answer.
Do we have people with skills here, to make prediction of each scenario ? Big CAP with locking, small cap with locking …
And also see what AMP and YAM did. As someone said (sorry if i don’t @ you) but Yam will stop the rebase. May it worth to speak to the team to ask why in order to avoid the same mistake (if it’s because of a mistake )
Last question: is there a deadline to launch $ DIGG ? Except making users happy with a new airdrop ? 
4 Likes
Tuviste oportunidad hasta el 17 de Dic, donando en gitcoin grants, o habiendo hecho staket+sett de algunas de sus variantes disponibles en app.badger.finance, a partir de ahora solo queda que los compres.
It looks like the most of votes are just for the sake of a bigger airdrop or from people who can’t think strategically, from people that don’t give a fuck about the network at all. And if it continues in such a way you will lose the rest of the network supporters.
6 Likes
It looks like debate is informing further views on two subjects:
Firstly on the two most popular initial market caps.
What should the initial supply of Digg be? (2nd vote)
- 6250 (~130mil market cap)
- 1562.5 (~31mil market cap)
0 voters
Secondly on the team DIGG vesting period
How long should the teams’ DIGG be vested over?
- One year
- Two years
- Three years
- Four years
0 voters
Haha, i’m trying to say that since few days. Happy to see more and more people sharing this POV. But the discussion is also more organized/constructive than at the beginning. We already lost some aidroped members
@bberry259 Could be also put it on the first message ? not sure all members will see this vote.
2 Likes
Unfortunately they’ll have to scroll all the way down here to see it!
That and I’m not sure when the ops team will finalise things.
I like the 8 week vesting, since this will be an elastic finance token, we would want to limit sell pressure initially to prevent a long beginning negative rebase. Otherwise, huge potential for major swings if not staggered properly.
Please vote for lower initial supply. In a rebase token the number doesn’t matter, you will own the same % of the supply if the initial is 10 or 1000 it doesn’t matter. If you believe in the long term vision of DIGG (and Badger) You should intend to accumulate supply % not the actual supply number. Many people feel strongly about this for fundamental reasons if you’re not sure please defer to the many discussions involving members who are experienced.
9 Likes
I don’t understand why people are voting for the full initial supply. If Badger is going to be for everyone, some part of the emission should be reserved for a future date when new people join in.
There should be something left for them too, hey. Emptying your offerings within 2 weeks of starting doesn’t really seem to be good for marketing.
5 Likes
I agree that the lower initial would be much better.
6 Likes
Ok I am convinced. Voting for low market cap. Let nature do its thing. Will see if I can change my vote in the other poll.
For vesting period of airdropped DIGG I am not sure yet. I initially voted no. Don’t we need liquidity from day 1?
So when is the final snapshot for DIGG?
3 Likes
I think it is probable that DIGG holders will have less money by the end of the day if BadgerDAO chooses 1562 over 6250 initial supply due to the massive (im)permanent loss they will have to endure.
The initial proposed market cap for DIGG looks reasonable to me.
If we start in the heavily positive rebase zone, a lot of people will lose money when the inevitable dump happens.
I wouldn’t like for people to get FOMO, buy DIGG when it’s at 2x the BTC price while seeing 5000% APY only to wake up the next day to find out that the price is at 50% and they’ve lost most of their money.
It is anti-ecological to choose the tiny market cap.
And it would be bad for the credibility of BadgerDAO and DIGG.
We’re shooting ourselves in the foot here.
5 Likes
It seems like some fine points have been raised in here since I last voted. This is a unique token and understanding exactly how these parameters will effect the launch can be challenging.
With an elastic supply and price model, I don’t see how the release of full or partial supply will make a huge difference, but seeing as there are fair arguments that a longer period will give the team more options with some in treasury, I’m willing to change my mind here.
I don’t know whether or not it’s wise giving pending release date to update the poll with narrowed options along with a summary of some considerations voiced by members, but if this could be done in a timely manner, may clear up some indecision.
To summarize my thoughts, I now think let’s launch with no airdrop vesting, 25% initial supply $DIGG, and 1 year vesting for team $DIGG.
2 Likes
You clearly don’t understand how rebasing works. The higher the supply, the faster it contracts.
We’ll be rebasing negatively right from the beginning.
If we set Mcap (too) low, we’ll rebase upwards and every holder will have more supply the next day.
2 Likes
He’s right about IL though - this has large implications on liquidity providers. The intention shouldn’t be to positively rebase as many days as possible in a row. That will create a huge dump and be more unstable. We want as many days stable to btc as possible with slow upward expansion until we find our niche marketcap spot.
Originally we had focused discussion on the two extreme options 25% supply vs 100% - but I think this type of parameter can average nicely. 3125 is a good middle ground that balances the pros and cons.
For simplicity and metaphysical reasons I propose DIGG start at 2100.
1 Like
The higher the supply, the faster it contracts.
The logic looks a bit fuzzy here.
Supply is the price for rebasing tokens.
If you start with 100 DIGG supply, you put your money into an LP pair, and then due to positive rebases the supply extends to 6250 DIGG, you will lose 75% of your money to impermanent loss compared to holding if the price is perfectly adequate.
The real question is - what is the adequate market cap for the part of the DIGG supply that gets emitted?
We should be aiming at the adequate market cap, not low, not high.
If this assessment is wrong, LPs will pay for that.
The lowest possible market cap could be a thing if DIGG was an independent project backed by nothing.
But this is not true, and thus the logic does not apply.
We’ll be rebasing negatively right from the beginning.
This statement is unfounded.
There are a lot of mechanics in place to keep the demand for DIGG up.
Most of the supply will be locked in DIGG Setts because of the high rewards they offer.
If we set Mcap (too) low, we’ll rebase upwards and every holder will have more supply the next day.
If the adequate supply for DIGG is 6250, choosing 1562 will loose LPs 20%+
If the supply will go to 12500, 1562’ impermanent loss will be 37% compared to 5.7% of 6250.
If the supply will go up to 25000 (or the price is 2x at 12500 supply), 1562 will lose 52% of the upside to IL compared to 20% of 6250.
==
Voting for 1562 supply is akin to saying that you think DIGG token is worthless.
Or that you want a freeroll participation in a pump & dump scheme where you take advantage of uneducated newcomers.
Newcomers who could otherwise become DIGG users and holders.
5 Likes
I agree with this… if the team doesn’t listen to this then I’m not sure they’re listening to loyal badgers…
Seems some are missing that only 15% of the DIGG supply will be airdropped and only 55% of the DIGG immediately available immediately between those dropped on and the 40% in the treasury, which is controlled by BADGER holders.
The BADGER-WBTC sett has ~$9.3MM of liquidity equating to $4.65MM of BADGER there and a daily trading volume of $2.4MM. BADGER sett has 1.4MM BADGER in it currently equal to $9.25MM., $13.9MM of BADGER.
TVL of our setts: sBTC sett is $62.5MM of bitcoin, renBTC is $67.5MM, tBTC is $67.9MM, renBTC supersett is $57.8MM. Total is $277MM
Roughly $14MM of BADGER out there currently. The current proposal of 6250 DIGG initial supply alongside the 15% of supply airdrop would put us at ~$21.5MM of DIGG in user hands and $57.5MM in treasury.
If we made the decision to reduce initial supply to 1562.5 that would put ~$5.4MM of DIGG in user hands and $14.4MM of DIGG in the treasury.
If we want to increase adoption of the protocol as a whole, we shoot ourselves in the foot by having immediately circulating DIGG be so low to start out, only 2% of the TVL in the protocol vs 6250’s 7.7%.
TLDR
The initial proposal of 6250 DIGG supply is most aligned with the goals of providing valuable products to the ecosystem. There are $277MM locked into this project right now, we have to walk the walk of a protocol that has that much trust, adding $5MM immediate liquidity is a pittance and won’t further our goals.
If you made it through this thank you and I welcome any comments and criticisms
12 Likes
If $DIGG is pegged to $BTC then everytime $BTC spikes up more people will leave $BADGER if negative rebase is high so I feel initial high circulation is not a good idea as $BTC is at ATH and going upwards
1 Like