I don’t know the percentages either, it would be nice to work on getting this info.
I agree that distribution of the 40% allocation of DIGG favoring LP’s is something that could be balanced out better, if not we will run into similar problems as other projects.
An I idea I thought of was what if the distribution of the 15% DIGG airdrop allocation was heavily weighted to the smaller addresses. Maybe a multiplier could be added if those addresses used the Badger sett products.
I think this can create interesting dynamics in governance.
This is one reason as to why I am being careful about bringing BTC onto Badger DAO. I would like to bring more to my initial wBTC/ BADGER LP, but with SBF and the goons that mimic him, I am worried about IL when they dump their bags of DIGG and BADGER. Vesting could help mitigate some of this.
Agree with so many that Digg should be tied to participating in Badger ecosystem SETTS, STAKING, MEME, coding, voting, participating in the forum etc. I think this proposal is really well thought out. You need to be digging into badger in some way or building it.
Ok team. We’ve had some really good discussion. One area I feel we should now signal on is whether the distribution is:
Weighted by holdings
Distributed to holders
Take this fictitious example:
100 Digg is allocated to the crvRenbtc Sett.
There are ten wallets participating in this pool at the snapshot.
Wallet 1 has 90% of the pool. A whale, heavily invested in the protocol
Wallets 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 have various amounts but together equal shares taking the remaining of the pool
In a weighted distribution the whale (wallet 1) would get 90% of the Digg we distribute in the airdrop/initial reward. In a Participation Distribution each wallet would get an equal amount (i.e 10 digg each). Of course we may set a limit on the participation (both through the date of the snapshot and a minimum amount).
Maybe im a little bit late with my reply but regarding the airdrop. Lot of us got here because the initial Badger aidrop, an external one, it made the comunity grow. But now you are voting against for that same thing that brought you here. Just put 10% or 5% for external aidrop to bring the atention of more people, i think it would be much better.
And for the distribution, i think it should be on participation to avoid big acumulation on certain players at fresh start, and its also more fair to everyone participating in the project regardless of the money each one has.
Is there any option to do a mix of both, where we lean towards a weighted distribution but put a hard cap on the number of $DIGG that can be airdropped (which would hopefully lead to better distribution)?
If you choose to go with weighted, it will centralize the supply with people who has allot invested already and make it difficult for newcomers to enter. I would like the whole community to be able to partake not just the early birds.
It would also be awesome to get some sort of smart contract that could auto deposit ones coins to the relevant LP’s and just auto stake everything . Sort of like a drop down selection
All current Setts will earn DIGG initially through the liquidity mining program.
Wouldn’t adding an airdrop on top of that duplicate those reward allocations to a large extent?
In my opinion, distributing the DIGG airdrop to Badger stakers, Badger LP providers, and Badger MEME minters gets the job done in the most efficient way.
Sett users do get the rewards this way, but we allocate more to Sett users who hold on to their Badger. And users who farm & dump get rewarded less.
We also reward the airdrop claimers and holders this way.
It would lead to a more distributed ownership of DIGG, and the distribution that rewards holders.
I think the Badger team did an excellent job with adjusting the initial airdrop distributions, so I see no problem in giving them carte blanche regarding the specifics of the DIGG airdrop.
Good airdrops are always retroactive. Otherwise, they get gamed.
This sums it up pretty well. Let’s have the team decided, we had a great discussion but i think it’s on the team now to solve the distribution without publicly stating who gets the rewards in advance.
Hi all, i got here and learned about Badger because of the airdrop. Now im in different setts staking, and loving this project!
I feel strongly about doing an airdrop, simply because it works! The more people learn about DIGG and Badger the better imo.
Many people missed out on the first airdrop, it would be good to give them another chance imo.
I could vote for getting more DIGG for current participants, like myself, but i feel its longterm more beneficial for both DIGG and Badger. We need as many new people as possible to learn about this project.
I also feel uniswap is a must, its simply still to big to exclude imo.
True, i also think its kind of selfish to want all for ourself. when even most of us came here from the previous aidrop. Lot of people didnt received anything because some problems and they have their tickets open trying to solve, other just dont care and didnt claimed it, etc… But i also think its far more better to try and expand the community, and not to try to fill up our bags to ourself (plus it would be also easier to move prices)
What about utilizing $BADGER as the token that receives the $DIGG distributions to stabilize price - same as Basis.Cash uses $BAS for speculative purposes and $BAC for stable peg to USD.
I like the idea of being inclusive with the distribution, but weighting it toward those active in the badger ecosystem. But I do like reserving some of the distribution for the external communities. Something like 50 - 75% goes to badger participants, 25 - 50% goes to ecosystem incentives?
The suggestion to also include some of the other rebasing communities in addition to the core BTC-on-ETH communities is good. Is there a way to easily exclude addresses that claimed badger and immediately sold? Those are the only external folks I’d want to exclude for sure.
As for how to weight the internal distribution - a split between participation and weighted makes the most sense to me. Everyone should get a minimum set(t) amount for being an early contributor to badger. But those who have provided more liquidity should get some kind of additional reward that caps out at a certain point, or has diminishing returns. Saying this as someone not providing a lot of liquidity.
And finally, a timelock on DIGG rewards similar to sushi as someone else suggested might make sense? I’m not super familiar with the fine technical details of rebasing coins, but if a whale farms up a bunch of DIGG early and dumps it, could it set off a negative rebase feedback loop? Not sure if this is relevant or a real concern, just what comes to mind watching AMPL from afar over the summer.
But all in all, I think the team did an amazing job with the audience and distribution for the initial airdrop (it’s why I’m here), so I ultimately trust whatever they come up with.
I think digg should be distributed in such a way that it benefits holders of badger while also catering to badger’s target audience which are people that have participated in dao governance.
10% should be airdropped same way as badger was airdropped but not excluding anybody this time.
5% to any wallet holding badger (equal distribution not based on weight)
20% to all bBadger and Badger LP stakers (equal distribution not based on weight)
20% as rewards for liquidity mining (weighted distribution)
45% to the DAO treasury.