[Proposal] Farm LP tokens in the treasury

When looking at one of the treasury’s addresses, 0xb65cef03b9b89f99517643226d76e286ee999e77, it occurred to me that almost none of the assets there are being farmed. All the Curve and Sushi LP tokens that are earned by the DAO as a withdrawal and/or performance fee are not put to work. Is this with a specific reason in mind? I can understand this if the DAO does not want to hold on to them for very long, but some of these tokens have been sitting there for months already.

Here’s a quick calculation I did based on the USD value of the LPs and the APR offered by Convex/MasterChef:

*I ignored the bBADGER and bDIGG pools APR, since due to their current farm sizes ($142k, $81k) the APR would drop considerably were Badger to participate.

That’s a free $35k per month (~3% of last month’s revenue)!

Another suggestion I have, would be to pool the ibBTC in the wallet into the WBTC/ibBTC pool. This would collect swap fees and yield more SUSHI, besides increasing the depth of the pool and stability of the token.

In the long-term it might be cool to consider writing an automated strategy for the treasury to manage these farms (pool loose tokens, stake, harvest yield and auto-compound). For now, I think already staking some of these tokens manually is a super quick win.

Or am I missing something? Is there a reason this hasn’t been done yet?


Hey gosuto, I don’t see a particular reason not to do it. We just need the proposal about allocations and for the governance to approve it.

Regarding BTC tokens, it is worth considering diversifying them into other BTC Convex vaults, too, as there is a higher APR on those currently.

Implementation-wise we could put them in our own Setts (and blacklist the address from Badger distributions).
Or perhaps fork the Setts with a modification that only the whitelisted treasury address can interact with them.

ibBTC could also be put into a Uni V3 pool, albeit not sure if worth the effort with these amounts

If we would use our own setts, we would also have to consider to blacklist them from TVL calculations. It might get confusing if we include our own treasury in our AUM—although the bCVX and bcrvCVX fees collected now technically faces this same problem. Also we’d only be adding 1-2% to our total TVL which is not really significant.

Still I think accounting and transparency wise it’d be better to keep treasury visibly separate, so a fork of the setts (or just direct staking for now, without a smart contract?) would be best.

In the long run, indeed this begs the question of how the DAO wants to allocate it’s treasury. Stake fees to the proportion they are collected, or force a specific distribution? What about the bBADGER and bDIGG in there?

Also I just realised there’s more fees collected in badger.agent: 0x8dE82C4C968663a0284b01069DDE6EF231D0Ef9B1 (and possibly more tokens tucked away elsewhere, I’m sure @mason knows where).