Just thinking about how to nudge behavior toward adoption of Badger and Digg, I had a thought. I’m not pushing for the following, but I guess I’m wondering if it would even be feasible, kind of as a small thought experiment.
In theory, assuming that such a fund existed, from a technical standpoint, would it be feasible to have the DAO subsidize at least some of the gas fees for people buying badger and/or digg (but not for selling)? If feasible from a technical perspective, how would something like that work?
I get where you’re coming from, and it is truly unfortunate that ethereum is so congested these days. However, your idea wouldn’t really make sense. If you sold a Ferrari, would you give your customer free gasoline and oil changes for life for buying your Ferrari?
Well, I don’t know if BMW still does this, but BMW used to do free oil changes. But regardless, my ultimate wider idea isn’t to cover all gas for all buys. I guess it could be described as more of a partial subsidy. For example, maybe each address could be entitled to 10 gwei per month if they’re buying Digg or Badger on the open market. This is just an example idea. And for Digg’s case, perhaps it could only be in effect if Digg is below the peg. If it shifts the cost of acquisition down a little, it could potentially incentivize wider adoption. It’s not that different from a treasury buying some of the asset up itself, really. At least conceptually, it’s not that different. In reality, I don’t know if it would have the same effect.
Ultimately, though, my idea was more of a thought experiment. I’m not pushing for it or anything. I’m just kind of wondering out loud, if one were to implement such a mechanism, how would it work?
It is a good thought experiment. It is something that I’ve been thinking about and working on for 2 years now. There are some other ways that Badger could provide discounts on gas, but it really is more of a complex topic for another day.
I disagree with you on paying people’s gas though… as there is just no way to regulate it… for example, how do you tell if you’re paying gas for an individual that needs it, or a corporation that has funding and a big giant gas tank of their own? I manage my gas use by buying ETH early on (and / or trading/staking it to earn apy on it) and as such, it doesn’t cost me anything really.
You’re right the analogy of oil changes doesn’t work. =) But this isn’t oil changes… those happen once every 3-6 months. This is a daily occurrence.
At the end of the day, trying to subvert ETH’s own mechanism for transactional capacity is just weird. If anything, it is just a cost of doing business. You have to spend money to make money.
Thank you for the reply. If each address were to be limited to something like 10 gwei towards gas for one transaction of the purchase of Badger or Digg per month, (just as an example), would it really matter if it’s a big company or a little guy, if the point is to encourage that the wider public further adopt these tokens?
And I would argue that it’s not about subverting Ethereum’s mechanisms so much as a small mechanism to try to incentivize behavior that the DAO wants, maybe somewhat akin to how governments use their tax code to incentivize behavior that they want to see in people.
I have some programming experience, but I have zero smart contract development experience, so I don’t know the realities of what would be technically feasible and what wouldn’t be. In trying to play out this little thought experiment, if one were to to try to put something like this together, the only thing I can think of is that it would have to be a somewhat controlled marketplace. And I guess the only thing that I can think of in such a scenario as it relates to Badger would be Badger’s own treasury. if/when it builds one up. So, let’s say Digg is below peg. The DAO could maybe do some sort of one-time gas discount in selling some of its own supply of Digg to people that want it in exchange for very specific tokens, such as WBTC, ETH, USDC, that it could use to buy up some more Digg.
Thinking that scenario through, I can see how people could potentially game that mechanism for their own profit, but maybe there could be some mechanisms to mitigate this? For example, if someone does take a gas subsidy, maybe in exchange, there’s some sort of time-based lockup on the token. And maybe that time could be some sort of function of how far off the peg Digg is and/or how volatile the market is.
Again, these are just some ideas as part of this thought experiment. None of this is coming from a place of worry or anything like that. I’m just trying to think of what could potentially be implemented to incentivize people to engage in the basic behavior of buying Badger and/or Digg tokens.
Truthfully, it all boils down to priorities. There is a very finite amount of developer resources available on any large project. Would you prefer them to add features and products that bring real money to the project or find a way to give people 10 gwei worth of gas (which is honestly, kind of a joke amount at this point). I vote for the former, especially as the long term goal of ETH is to migrate to a system where gas is minimized and thus this whole idea is moot anyway.
It is a nice thought you have, but it is not going to happen anytime soon. Sorry, but I’d just drop it.
Yeah, again, I wasn’t pushing for anything. The 10 gwei was just an example number. And I was just thinking an idea through, trying to have a discussion.
We can just add Binance Smart Chain on Badger DAO like 1inch did much easier solved this way. It will also drive up value of BadgerDAO overall
I was reading another projects discord, I think it was balancer, but I can’t remember for sure. Anyways they had some kind of gas subsidy program so it’s definitely possible if the community wanted it but we are working on a layer 2 dex already and as rk7 said the developers already have a full plate.
Given limited developer resources and time, would you prefer spending that time adding value to Badger as a product or adding a centralized solution like BSC that no large financial institution will ever touch?
I understand, the point of scarce resources, and having to prioritise how to use them.
But there is the risk that potential new users could be scared off through the high fees.
And keep in mind, alot of projects are working on multiple chains(xdai, matic or fantom) and it is getting easier for the users to switch, seen as metamask has acted, and even a couple of exchanges let you withdraw to different chains.
And this: https://twitter.com/AndreCronjeTech/status/1368150293280604161?s=20
Just think for a moment. New users who can’t afford gas are certainly welcome, but probably not the low-hanging fruit that would be prioritized above people who have a bit more to contribute over needing a handout of some amount of gas. I know that isn’t an ideal answer, but it is just the way it is from a more honest pov.
I appologize, i did not read the part with the subsidies, and totally agree, I do not see any priority in “handouts”. And concerning the integration of L2 solutions, yes BSC is shady at best, but there are other decentralized L2 solutions that could make sense.
The team is looking at other chains and L2 solutions. More should be announced soon.