Category: Emissions. Scope: Badger, DIGG, and cvxCRV Emissions for 13 weeks between December 30 and March 31.
TL;DR:
Extend the current schedule with the base rate of 0.75% weekly reduction in Badger emissions
Keep the 15% targeted Badger APR + 20k cvxCRV per week for bveCVX
Keep DIGG emissions the same as Q4 2021
Overview
The current schedule is about to end on December 30.
When it comes to Badger emissions, the suggestion is to extend the current schedule with the base rate of 0.75% weekly reduction in Badger emissions (same as it’s been for Q4), which means about 33% yearly reduction. The only change compared to Q4 would be that all ibBTC/sBTC emissions would be distributed as Boosted, while previously a declining rate of pro-rata rewards was applied.
With bveCVX vault, the proposal is to keep the 15% targeted APR approach with Badger emissions and 20k cvxCRV per week.
As for DIGG, the schedule would have the same rate of emissions as Q4 in preparation for DIGG 2.0 transition, planned for Q1 2022.
I don’t understand the logic on keeping the emissions unchanged for the mstable pools (with the respective weekly reduction) when they clearly have failed to attract any significant AUM.
I don’t really like the change regarding the ibBTC/sBTC emissions, even when I am fully aware that the high pro-rata emissions were not too successful in the first place. Still, I am not sure if it is the right moment to make this change.
TVL on Arbitrum instead of increasing has been reducing. If I remember correctly, we were over 22M now we are at 15M. We are lucky it still has emissions for Q1. Maybe it will be the last… it seems that the entire focus is mainnet.
I agree we should have moved mStable emissions to ibBTC, but we needed to get this out and have been distracted, and in the end it’s only about 12,000 BADGER in total emitted to mStable over the quarter. We can deal with it in a few months when thing’s aren’t so crazy.
The flat emisisons didn’t lead to pool capture, if we were going to emit flat, it makes more sense to spend the BADGER on bribing which offers a higher ROI for users than flat badger emissions anyway. Again, we can discuss bribes with unallocated BADGER emissions to boost ibBTC yields for everyone, if we get back to pre-exploit BADGER pricing.
I think we are still commited to Arbitrum, but don’t have enough influence to really support it yet. There is no intention to shut this down, and the hopes to someday setup a Curve Pool for ibBTC and vote for emissions there. It’s just right now it’s hard for us to work with the CRV on arb, so there is no easy way to convert that into influence that can be used to increase emisisons. We’ll get there. The decrease here is just keeping emissions as they have been since the ibBTC launch with the same small decrease per week as everything else. You are correct that we are not super focused on Arbitrum right now, but we’re also not abandoning it, and our continued emissions there shows ongoing commitment (much more than in the case of mStable)
I would support a snapshot that offers users the opportunity to move the mstable emisisons to ibBTC as an additional choice/option.
@Mr_Po can we include a snapshot option to either keep m-stable emissions or move them to ibBTC lp? I would love to see us adjusting BIP’s a bit more based on their Forum conversations and @cryptomooniac makes a good point, as he often does.
Badger/WBTC on Sushi still represents a decent portion of Badger liquidity, it’s a good product, and it’s not too expensive for the DAO. So from my pov it’s worth it at the current ratio of liquidity / emissions. Migrating to Curve V2 and using the liquidity incentives for bribing could be a decent option for Badger in 2022, and if we keep Sushi emissions the transition could be smoother.
Overall, I consider having more liquidity better than having less, especially while the DAO is recovering from the ui exploit
