In my mind what the DAO gets for this is security in deposits. We kind of break that if you can end early. I would almost argue the other way around, that the tokens should be transferable, so you can always sell your time-locked tokens to someone else at a discount on OTC (or an AMM if available) if you need to get out early.
My thought was to have the boost apply to at least the APY of the actual tokens locked, and maybe think about also having some effect on Badger Boost Multipliers to the non-native setts, but open to ideas/thoughts.
I think the economics/game theory of detaching the boosting-rights from the locking period is too complicated for now and will likely get us in trouble, but it would be a cool thing to play with in the future.
Auto-compounding isn’t really a bonus for long-term stakers. It’s a bonus for everyone. It helps small players the most because they were the ones spending the most (% wise) on gas to do this themselves.
I have no desire to break some carefully laid plan, but I think long-term thinking is something that is very much missing in DeFi, and we have a lot of it here. We should encourage it. I spoke a lot about this in my comments in BIP-24, but a lot of this is about creating the right culture.
People who lock badger for 6 months are more likely to stay involved in the community. They’re more likely to tell their friends about Badger and to promote the project. They’re more likely to write BIPs, and participate in the forums. And if they are doing all those things, when their 6 months come up, they’re more likely to lock again.
Investing overt the last 20 years has become horribly short-termist. Stocks are held for seconds not years, and most people pay very little attention to what is actually going on in the companies/DAO’s/tokens they invest in. I believe this is one of the biggest problems with today’s system. Building a strong community of die-hard believers from the start, who are invested with not just their money, but also their hearts and minds will likely end up being the best moat Badger has.
We have done such a good job of building this so far, I just think it would be a shame not to keep going.
I agree that debt is also a great economic lock-in tool, but I don’t think it has the same psychological effect, perhaps just the opposite, one of being stuck not enthralled.
Ahh I think I understand your first question now:
I think the main issue here is that the Geyser already does an increasing mx with time, but it’s difficult to do it in a compostable way that’s easy to look into/report on the dashboard, and the dev team is trying to reduce complexity and move forward. A lock with an upfront time commitment is something very easy to tokenise, view, think about and work with. No more trying to calculate every deposit/withdraw everyone has ever made to determine a Geyser MX. Just x tokens locked till y date for z multiplier.
There are lots of solutions that are more complicated and perhaps cool, better. This solution sought to be easy, and to be a way to keep long-termism as part of our protocol/culture until we figured out what to do next.
Overall I don’t mind introducing moderate incentives for locking up LPs.
More than anything, they could serve well for DIGG price stabilization Setts - and could allow for new Setts to emerge that wouldn’t be viable without the goldy locks.
But DeFi is a lot about capital efficiency, and I generally prefer having AND choices over OR choices.
So if the question is
“Would you prefer to:
a) time-lock your LP
b) time-lock your LP AND also to be able to use 25% of the value that you lock”
The choice is evident, right? If b) is possible it would ‘eat’ a).
But if we move towards b), then introducing a) first would mean that people don’t really lock their tokens for the set period by design - or they’re stuck with their locks when a better option is available.
That’s why I would prioritize developing the collateralization options and then see where we can go from there in terms of locking options.
I’m not completely sure I understand why you want a time lock for LP tokens ?
I also think it’s “dangerous” because those token are not from Badger. So you have to be Long badger but also but Long Curve (for example) . What happens if, for any reason, Curve stop a pool ? or something happens on Curve’s side ?
In 6 months why people would want to stay in those pools ? $badger rewards will stop at some points.
The only pool I see it can be useful to have a time lock is for the future DIGG / WBTC.
But a time locking could be very nice with $Badger. Exactly as Curve is doing with $CRV. I guess at some point fees generated will be distributed between users.
From a purely economic point of view, I 100% agree with you. From a cultural/human/people/vibe point of view, I think it would be a very strong signal to our culture to keep some continuity in the story that a long term badger holder tells about how they are cared-for/considered/supported by the platform.
Maybe @Spadaboom is a good person to jump in here, as he seems to be our marketing mastermind, but I’d like to see us put some sort of a time-based system in place soon after removing the Geysers, even if it it’s basic and has an facility to break the time-lock early if the DAO comes up with a better solution or realised it is creating problems. It’s fine if a eat’s b. I just think we need a or something for b to eat in place soon after we drop the Geyser.
If everyone were rational robots and crypto markets were 100% efficient I would agree with you. But Badger is not just a token with value, it’s also a brand, some may even call it a tribe, a cult or a religion. These things have real value too in a world where we are all humans with feelings and urges and FOMO and FUD.
If we don’t think it’s important to keep this continuity in the human experience of using badger, I’m more than happy to wait until after CLAW is sorted out to think about timelocks.
Just taking the time to talk this through in a way that everyone can understand is valuable, even if we decide in the end not to do it.
I’m glad to see that this proposal is somewhat what I was suggesting on the discord the other day. I like the NFT idea to let the tokenized lp stay staking in the geyser for the multiplier. I saw mr.po’s response that it might be an issue to implement it but i wouldn’t mind locking for 4+ years if it gets to be implemented.
I’m not sure I would lock more than 30% of my position, however, as I’m realizing that liquid bbadger sounds more attractive as a trade off for the geyser.
I still like it as an optional feature for long term holders, but composibility for bbadger sounds also like a great incentive for the long term.
You mention that Badger has been around for some weeks only. And it is very dinamic, constantly evolving. In a short period of time significant changes have occurred. While I sypmathize with the idea of additional rewards for time locking (and not only LP tokens), I feel this is a discussion for later. Badger boost should be implemented first and then see how it goes. There are a lot of moving parts and if you don’t align all the gears, a system might stuck or even break down. Furthermore, in order to implement this idea, all angles, including the governance system, should be carefully analyzed and planned.
These are very good, well made points. If we can’t work all that out now, we shouldn’t bring this to a BIP. Right now it looks like there is less than a few million dollars in interest, so that is another indication that this may make more sense later.
So, one thing we could do is distribute rewards for the lending platform usage similar to how Compound does it.
Another thing we could do is allow people to lock their LP tokens for X amount of time to receive more rewards during this time.
What I’m considering is if we can do both at the same time.
So for example, you would have your DIGG/WBTC LP, and you could use it as collateral.
But you also could lock that collateral to receive higher rewards.
But you could still borrow against it.
The only difference would be that if you repaid your debt you wouldn’t be able to withdraw your collateral or do anything with it until the lock expires.
I like your point about Badger being a brand. I would propose that even if we decide not to do any type of LP or badger/digg apy boosts at this time then how about just some cool badger art NFT’s that are rewarded for staying in setts for certain time periods. I think the community would really digg it.
Couldn’t the rewards go to the DIGG setts to help maintain DIGG peg?
So you lock your lp tokens to get extra reward and if DIGG price is below btc then you get more rewards in DIGG setts and if price is above then you get more rewards in badger setts just as your BIP 22 states? Currently BIP 22 is only for the new DIGG setts right? But if we enabled locking for any lp on the app we could direct the rewards this way to help maintain the peg.
I like the time lock option but maybe it should just be an optional hoddlng tool ? Many degens struggle to just hold a coin. Personally I would make it an optional tool as a self help option but also give all stakers a lottery ticket every month with the chance of a big prize ( and reduce Apy a little to pay for it) . This would encourage that inner degen but also encourage responsible Hoddling. Those that lock in their funds though, maybe they get to scratch all their lottery tickets the moment they lock their stake. This wouldn’t cost any more to the badger community (apart from the effort to write the new code) but might make the ecosystem more attractive. Roll over jackpots also might heavily encourage new investment.