Ya I’m not sure 3% is the right amount, but it should be something divisible by 6, and distributed in the manner I described above.
Each NFT should get an equal % of the airdrop.
Could easily knock it down to 1.2% TOTAL, with 0.2% distributed across each NFT.
I’m certainly flexible with the numbers, but that should be the format.
Am I wrong?
I like the simplicity of he original distribution scheme and would recommend we don’t get lost into price action consideration, as these are essentially temporary.
With the proposed formula, the longer you hold and stake Badgers in high APY pools, the better your multiplier, the more DIGG you’ll get. Fair and simple. It also rewards more the peeps who didn’t dump their initial BADGER airdrop — the same ones that are likely to not dump their DIGG right after airdrop.
My only concern with using sqr root of total BADGER earned is sybil resistance. Whales could flip their bStake to a new address every few hours to max out their DIGG airdrop. There should be mechanisms in place to insure bStake rotation strategy is disqualified — maybe by insuring rewarded address effectively deposited and did not receive their bDeposit from another address? then if a few peeps where wrongly disqualified they ca be dealt with individually with treasury (but i wouldn’t expect there are many of them, as there’s little reasons to move a bDeposit to a new address).
Wow, I have been reading all the conversation and there are some interesting points all around. It seems to me that most people are concerned about fair launch, initial supply, how to prevent dumping (and encourage / reward staking and loyalty) and overall most of us want to see Badger (and Digg) grow and live up to its purpose / potential.
A lot of that has also been discussed in the DIGG Launch Parameters.
I have seen that there have been additional votes (in some posts), I have tried to participate there as well (glad I didn’t miss them). Will there be a “final” version of the proposal to vote - including all the launch parameters and Setts?
I think snapshot must have been taken before it was revealed.
AFAIK snapshot stop hasn’t been revealed yet. But indeed back dating the snapshot to the distribution scheme announcement would sort of solve this issue.
Large liquidity providers had too much skin in the game, obviously they are gonna sell some to reduce risk. So I think it should be proportionate to all. Most of the large liquidity providers aren’t even participating in the governance. Will it be good to sideline those large liquidity providers? After all Badger DAO was supposed to be for all, not small or big. They took larger risk with larger liquidity, so in my opinion, they should get the same amount of rewards.
Are we using Snapshot for Governance?
In my view people who held their Badger until now earned by providing liquidity should be rewarded more than those who were once holders of Badger and sold their rewards immediately. Furthermore the reward in Badger and DIGG should be made more profitable progressively in time, the longer you hold the more you get. One way to prevent dumping is increase rewards on pure Badger and DIGG staking absolutely and in time
Thanks @mason it seems you have got connected and agree with your other post here.
Fully agree $DIGG needs liquidity from day one or else there will be difficulties.
Happy to help contribute to discussion on the 8/10 week cliff challenge. Let me know I’ve followed SNX, Curve and other top defi token protocols’ distributions closely. Something tapering off longer term is critical for $BADGER to avoid the fate of $SWRV.
Thanks @bitcoinpalmer @Spadaboom @DeFiFrog @cryptoyieldinfo for the response, loving how active people are here and excited to see how I can provide value to the project!
Cheers
Some people sold half the BADGER they earned for WBTC, so they could then pool it in BADGER-WBTC. Should they be punished for selling half for this purpose?
that’s a good point !
I sold some of my $BADGER earned to get in other setts. If you only look at BADGER sold, you are punishing those who could be infact be fully comitted to Badger. Like me, i sold my earned badger+put more $ in to add to all sets!
reinvest should be in consider too
The process on the forum is to gather signalling and sentiment before moving to an “official” vote on the www.snapshot.page/#/badgerdao.eth.
In BIP like these it makes sense to split different parts of the decision into different official votes.
Technically if they were to do this they would loose their multiplier. The multiplier is based on your staked position in the “geyser” not the vault. They are 2 separate things. So your bPOSITION represents just the vault. If they were to transfer that then it means they removed from the geyser and lost the multiplier.
This is an important conversation that we will need as much insight around as possible.
I have a plan that I will share with the community most likely next week after we decide on critical things around DIGG.
At the core of it though, the goal is to extend the LM event as long as possible while maintaining high APY’s and ensuring a strong security posture.
Technically they wouldn’t be punished under this model since they would of probably received more rewards since that vaults APY is the highest.
They would be punished.
With this model they get less DIGG than they’d get without this model.
For what it’s worth, whales are the ones that provide actual liquidity. Sqrt distributions hurt whales and they leave projects. I’ve seen it on many farms and liquidity mines. Keep whales happy, liquidity stays, project flourishes. Piss off whales, and they leave and you’re left with a bunch of minnows that don’t add much value to the project.
I think a sqrt distribution should be thought of very carefully.