BIP 83. Update bCvxCRV to lock CVX

Context:

The bcvxCRV Strategy is meant to auto-compound assets to increase the value of it’s shares.

Observation:

After a review of our strategies, we found that the bcvxCVR strategy (cvxCRV Helper Strategy), is selling CVX for CRV.

This is in stark contrast with the DAO goals of locking as much CVX as possible to increase its voting power to maintain high yields on tokenized bitcoin.

Solution (already in works):

A simple solution, which the team can apply immediately is to simply emit bCVX (CVX Helper Vault), this will reduce the sell pressure and still redistribute yield to the token holders.

Because this doesn’t change the spirit of the Strategy, this change can take effect at no risk

Recommended Solution (what you’re voting on):

An alternative solution, which we’re proposing here, is to lock the CVX into bveCVX and then emit it as bveCVX (Badger Vested Escrow CVX), this means that every single CVX the DAO harvests will be locked, increasing the DAOs voting power, and in turn, the depositors yield on tokenized bitcoin.

This change has to be voted as it changes the “spirit” of the strategy from simple auto-compouding, to emitting a locked asset (which has emissions on it)

In terms of opportunity cost, the strategy should return slightly higher returns (as bveCVX is incentivized via BADGER emissions), however, it does expose depositors to CVXs market beta.

Personally, I believe this will massively help Badger DAO maintain its lockedCVX control, which as you’ve seen in recent times has allowed to vote stable yields on the DAOs main products.

VOTE:

Yes → Change bcvxCRV to Lock and Emit bveCVX

No → bcvxCRV Should not lock CVX

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

1 Like

would a “No” vote result in the DAO emitting bCVX as part of the bcvxCVR strategy?

Lock it all!

Thank you for working on this.

1 Like

Yeah, Voting No means we’ll simply emit bCVX (avoid issues with slippage + you get a productive asset)

1 Like

Yes.
A “No” vote means you want bCVX emitted rather than bveCVX.

bCVX doesn’t make any sense to me. But with bveCVX you are helping to increasing BTC yields and it’s not really locked anyway.

1 Like

If bCVX is controversial we won’t do it

But then we’re selling CVX while all our other actions are trying to get more

“every single CVX the DAO harvests will be locked” … Sounds good to me.

Also, I’m about to use the rebate incentive to clear out the last of the bCVX I have kicking around. I’d rather not have a new source of bCVX that I’d eventually pay gas to claim, withdraw to CVX and deposit into bveCVX so it’s put to good use. If the strategy will do that for me, I’m all for it.

1 Like

Thank you for the insight, am understanding that claiming has is downsides, if the proposal doesn’t pass we will simply sell via a different path.

However this to me would be a wasted opportunity, best to lock as much CVX as we can while we can

1 Like

I would be against emitting as bcvx but for emitting as bvecvx.

My only question for the community is that this does lower the protocol yield as there is a performance fee on bcvxcrv but there is not on bvecvx. Are we comfortable with that? Also the fees on bcvxcrv go to further incenting bvecvx. If we lower the fees we are lowering the bvecvx yield in two ways (more deposits and less cvxcrv yield). Are we comfortable with that given the recent huge votium round and the coming unlocks?

Perhaps this vote should coincide a conversation in raising badger yield to 20-25% on bvecvx?

Thoughts?

1 Like

IMO bveCVX gets performance fees by increasing underlying yield for BADGER vaults, which increases the amount we’re getting from performance fees from those vaults. At most, I’d say 5-10% performance fees on bveCVX.

I don’t think the solution is a performance fee on bveCVX. Thats the last thing you want when y ou want to attract more cvx to the platform. I think any delta should be covered by increase in badger yield. We did it once from 10-15%.

This proposal while smart would lower bvecvx yield. That should probably be moderated.