I propose separating the typical reward yield structure as follows, The current equation would be used to measure and multiply the amount of DIGGS and Badger rewarded.
Where most liquidity pools normally offer a percentage of your liquidity provision based on the duration any amount is allocated (the structure for API ). We would instead create two simple and separate equations, that the sum of would yield the amount any early liquidity provider/miner will receive while staking.
The following will greater emphasize appreciation for anyone willing to participate, and brave exposure to financial risk.
The current model of API yield structure used for rewarding liquidity pools, however unintentionally, places greater emphasis on the amount invested, than the idea of the investment . The structure I suggest uses the same math backwards, placing greater emphasis on appreciation for the investment, rather than amount, though it accounts for that too, not any less, just balances disproportion.
As such:
TOTAL REWARDS ALLOCATION / SPLIT AMONG POOLS IN WHICHEVER AMOUNTS DECIDED UPON (the following will be unaffected by any percentages chosen)
PER INDIVIDUAL POOL
50% OF REWARDS PER POOL / (divided by) HOURS LOGGED PER STAKERS = AWARD PER HOUR FOR LP STAKED ā¢ LPS = REWARD SHARE
REMAINING 50% OF REWARDS PER POOL (DIGGS and BADGER) / (divided by) AMOUNT OF TOTAL LIQUIDITY (amount of LPS in any given pool) = AMOUNT PER ELIGIBLE LPās FOR DIGGS REWARDS
TOTAL LPās PER EACH INDIVIDUAL DEPOSIT ā¢ (multiplied by) VALUE OF LP = REWARDS FOR QUANTITY OF LIQUIDITY PROVIDED - THE SUM OF BOTH PARTS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED = A MORE FAIR AND EQUITABLE SHARE OF RISK AND REWARD, RELATIVE TO ANY INDIVIDUALS INVESTMENT CAPACITY, THAT IS NOT CAPABLE BE MANIPULATED BY THE USE OF MULTIPLE WALLETS OR ANY OTHER FACTOR SIMILAR IN NATURE
Hi, it may not be to the same extent but there is a rewards multiplier that increases linearly towards 3 (3x rewards relative to stake) over the full distribution period for BADGER. We could do the same for DIGG.
The difficulty in trying to make it āmore fairā by moving from scaling with monetary value to scaling in wallets staked time is it can be āgamedā by the clever and rich. Splitting up ones portfolio into more wallets can give them a larger share of the time only based pool, without changing their share of liquidity.
Iām in favor of a linear rewards multiplier. I think its helped Badger grow and is a strong longer term incentive, same with setts having compounding. Vesting should be strongly considered even if the % is small. The setts on launch should be whatever is most tested and ready, with the complicated ones delayed until the new year.
I think the initial supply should be lowered. With BTC ~20k: 6250 is 125M , Airdropping 15% of 6250 = 937.5 DIGG = ~$18.5M. On top of that the emissions average out to 40% / 8 weeks / 7 days = 0.714 % / day. Thatās ~44 DIGG on day 1, or 880k. I think 125M, or ~1/2 Badgers marketcap is a little too ambitious. I would love to see the initial supply of DIGG in the range of 2100 to 3125 - a reduction to 1/3 or 1/2.
as mentioned, also somewhere more upwards in the discussion, iād also think a lower start of the amound of DIGG would be better, which can then organically grow via the rebases.
Iām afraid a too big of a starting market cap, could initiate a major sellof maybe, because people would receive a pretty big DIGG amount initially. This would look bad, on the other hand, when there are continuously positive rebases, it builds more good news/euphoria. Does that make any sense?
I strongly believe that any airdrops should be somewhat based on participationā¦and level of risk.
Someone that claimed the initial Badger and staked it, is not equal to someone that brought in outside assets and LPd in the wBTC/Badger pool. This should be reflected.
Yes, sorry trying to balance work and crypto chat and not paying enough attentionā¦ lol
Iām not sure how the snapshot will work but we could get a flood of new people trying out the Badger staking in hopes of getting the Digg Airdrop. Could be good to drive up the price which also benefits holders.
I guess something i would correct would be that 33% wouldnāt just go to Badger stakers but to anybody using any of the vaults which would include Badger stakers.
Trying to catch up here on all the posts and clarify something.
On Badgerās website it says the following:
50% of the total Digg supply will be mined by the community with no ability for new Digg to be minted outside of the programatic rebases. The remaining 50% will be distributed to the DAO for the community to decide what to do with it.
In this proposal, treasury has 40% and it seems that was the proposal from the beginning. Is the community deciding on allocation of 60%, 50% or what? Just trying to get my facts straight on whatās been decided and what hasnāt.
Itās pretty quiet in here considering only a few days to decide on this.
My thought is to keep a simple structure that equally benefits those who have invested large amounts into Badger and the little guys as well who also deserve to be included. Also, some should be a bonus incentive to come over and lock in your DIGG.
My proposalis:
33.3% To each individual holder staking badger. No matter the amount.
33.3% To each individual staking badger weighted on the amount.
33.3% Bonus reward for staking DIGG (this could relieve some sell pressure).
I think this would be a very simple and fair distribution. I hope we can come to a decision soon. Very excited to ba a part of this regardless of how it is done.
What would be a way around this, that could still benefit smaller holders?
Use a past snapshot?
If the bulk of the airdrop goes just weighted on balance the whales receive the bulk of it regardless.
