DIGG Rebalancer Sett


A SETT that automates the actions of a rational profit driven holder of $DIGG; providing stability and upside for the holder, fees for badgerDAO, and price support for DIGG.


Rebasing assets are built on the assumption that price can be influenced by adjusting supply. Create more supply and holders will sell some, reduce supply and they are more likely to hold. The more that participants follow this rule the more stable the asset should become. This SETT strategy is meant to mimic the actions of the ideal holder, selling as more supply is minted and buying as it is reduced.


  1. Diversification through holding both DIGG and WBTC
  2. Users save on gas since the SETT as a whole rebalances vs each user doing it themselves
  3. DIGG is stabilized, as price moves upwards there is steady sell pressure and steady buy support on the way down


A sett that holds an equal number of DIGG and WBTC tokens. If it holds 1 DIGG it should also hold 1 WBTC, irrespective of price. It will have a stability threshold (ex 1%) that it will use as the rigger to rebalance.

There are three external ways in which the supply of either coin can change.

  1. User Deposits
  2. User Withdrawals
  3. Rebase

On each of these actions the Sett will check and see if the action will take it beyond the stability threshold (either way) and if so it will rebalance back to the stability threshold.


You can find the amount to buy and sell for rebalancing using the relative prices of the two assets and the gross difference in the amounts held in the SETT

  • Amount to Buy of Underweight Asset: Uamt
  • Price of Underweight Asset: Upx
  • Price of Overweight Asset: Opx
  • Difference between Overweight and Underweight Amounts: D

To calculate how much to buy of the underweight asset

Uamt = (Opx * D) / (Opx + Upx)

To calculate how much to sell of the overweight asset

Oamt = D - Uamt


On each action listed above (deposit, withdrawal, rebase) the difference relative to the threshold should be checked and, if appropriate, trigger the rebalance. Anyone calling the rebalance can be rewarded with $50 in DIGG in whatever the overweight asset is at that time for their trouble (and gas).

Ideally the rebalance can be called by the rebase contract directly. If not, hopefully the incentive will be enough to inspire prompt rebalances.


Standard fees can apply, my preference would be for a deposit fee that would reward those that had been in the pool longer at the expense of new entrants (.5% seems appropriate).


It will be difficult to determine a benchmark to compare against to determine “performance”. We can leave performance fees as 0. In lieu of this a small fee could be taken on each rebalance.

Other Thoughts

  1. The SETT could hold DIGG and a different b-SETT (brenCRV SETT) token instead of WBTC to get the benefit of the yield inherent in the SETT. The amount compared to the balance of DIGG would be adjusted by the brenCRV<>WBTC price. More complicated, but not impossible.
  2. Lockup periods or other incentives (rewards multipliers through staking) could be added to really improve stability
  3. This is only possible due to the existence of the SETTs. It is simple but still a novel concept. It could have limits on the amount of deposits it can receive to limit the potential downside.
  4. Ideally the rebalance function can be called on rebase. if not then that may need to be looked at more closely.
  5. It may make sense to have a larger rebalance threshold to start (5+%) and then reduce via governance (if possible) over time


This SETT could be a differentiator and be a key piece of DIGG being the most successful rebasing asset to launch to date.


Still reading and processing the proposal but one thing that stands out to me is the tight range of 1% when a rebalance happens. This seems too aggressive but would like to understand your thinking on that narrow range? We want folks to trade DIGG and if the range is too narrow it might not be as profitable as it needs to be for those traders. We obviously do not want extremee as they can have destabilizing effects but again want to understand the thinking around the 1% number.


Thanks for the response, yes we may want a wider range to start and can adjust as we go. Youre right, especially at launch 1% would be too tight, ideally its not a super-frequent thing so rebalancing benefit plays out. Maybe start at 20 or 30. Early on big deposits would even trigger a rebalance

1 Like

I suggest we start a very broad range at 30% at first as it needs to get its footing and increase its liquidity level all of which will result in high volatility. I would not make the tuning of that range up for a vote for the duration of the liquidity mining and leave that to someone like you who can monitor, analyze the situation, and adjust accordingly. Agility I think is key here. Lastly, I place both a geyser multiplier and lock up any rewards for the first 60 days to minimize volatility since the ups and downs of such a token can be quite stomach-turning especially at its inception.

1 Like

It would be curious to look at a couple of simulations of this strategy and compare its performance to holding 1 Digg + 1 BTC.

The ultimate parameter is the buying power of the underlying holdings.
So it is essential to understand well how this parameter deviates when facing certain market conditions.

Once we have the model that accounts for rebasing + rebalancing, we also could backtest it on the price history of other rebasing projects.

Of course, implementing this Sett would affect the price performance a lot based on the amount of money that’s locked in it - so this could be a further area to explore.

An interesting proposal overall, I’d like to understand it better.

Really great idea. It would be great to have this from the beginning.

And in the future if possible, it would be better to upgrade this to balancer private pool which does the same (maybe have other btcs as well).

Balancer pool

No additional gas fees for rebalancing.
Providing additional liquidity.
Additional incentive through fees.
Will keep the withdrawal fee from setts as is.

But this approach might keep the price too close to peg, it might not be such a good thing during initial stages so it is still something to think about in later stages.

yeah, doing it with balancer would be really cool. i think it could be done with a smart pool but would take some work. the strategy i think mostly dampens rebases in the same direction. So the hope is it would still allow for progressive growth but then give it breathing room when some negative rebases start.