[REVISED] Proposal to modify bBadger / bDigg pool configurations / LM rewards

The following proposal that is currently up for vote is too vague.

As we move projects towards deeper levels of priveledge within the bancor network, we need to ensure that proposals are well thought out and of mutual benefit to both bancor and the tkn under consideration.

B tokens such as bbadger and bdigg are representative of badger / digg tokens within a vault and are not extensively traded elsewhere. The underlying badger / digg are highly liquid on their own.

Because of this, there is no real benefit, IMO, to having a competitive pool fee on bbadger / bdigg pools.

I Suggest making an alternate proposal.

Bbadger / Bdigg pool fees raised to 1%.
Bbadger / Bdigg coinvestment increase to 5million BNT each.
Addition of liquidity mining rewards to both pools.

The badger community is forged from diamond hands and all walks of defi.
The vast majority of badger / digg are staking within these vaults.
Because of this, and a lack of use cases for the issued b Tokens, I believe there will be a very high subscription to single sided pools on Bancor.

If the community can get liquidity to a certain threshold with the higher coinvestment limits, I believe that the volume generated from the arbitrage on bbadger / bdigg vs badger / digg at a 1% fee would make LM rewards well worth it for BOTH the bancor and badger communities.

Voting yes on this proposal is agreeing to the three conditions outlined above.

11 Likes

As a BNT, DIGG, and BADGER holder, I would love to see this.

My BNT vote barely registers, but as a badger holder this sounds good .

3 Likes

As a BNT and Badger holder I fully support this.

2 Likes

I’m A BNT and BADGER investor and support this proposal over the quoted one as @Cryptomessiah rationale makes total sense

1 Like

As a Badger and BNT holder I also support this proposal.

Thanks for revising this on everyone’s behalf - I’m all in on this, thanks again.

Has my support as an investor/holder of digg, badger and BNT

Let’s make it happen!!! BNT is holding the line really well compared to other alts and we are feasting on high volume, time to stoke the flames with a new LM pool, the incentive to buy the dip combined with super high LM APY will be irresistible. SEND IT!!!

Do people even trade bBadger and bDigg ? 10m BNT coinvestment with no volume is counter productive.

2 Likes

No, they do not… hence the proposal to increase the pool fees to 1% and let keepers generate volume /fees for bancor through arbitrage between badger/digg to bbadger / bdigg.

10m in coinvestment is proposed to allow high participation from the badger community / allow frequent arbs by keepers.

Without ample liquidity (which will exist through high coinvestment), arbs w/ a 1% fee would be infrequent.

The aim here is to create an environment to where the arbitrage is enticing / reap the fees from frequent arbitrage.

Edit to add:
There are several other interest bearing tokens that bancor could list in this fashion… because we know for a fact that there will be heavy subscription by badger community, I believe that these pools can establish precedent for future listings, such as aave’s interest bearing tokens.

I do not understand the purpose of this proposal other than diluting BNT rewards more for a token that generates no volume… I will vote no

Because interest bearing tokens aren’t typically traded, we have an opportunity create pools for those tokens with high fees and capture massive arbitrage volume (given that there is ample liquidity).

There will be high subscription from the badger community, creating this environment.

It’s a good proof of concept… and establishes precedent for erecting similar pools in the future.

yeah you could propose something very small to start as a proof of concept… at the current size it makes no sense.

I have heard the argument for “massive arbitrage volume” and it never happens. This will turn into another diluted double dip pool where the badger adds no value to bancor, especially since these coins are not traded.

It has to have size to make sense… if the liquidity doesn’t exist, arbitrage won’t be frequent.

eta:

And you may have heard this argument 1000x… but has this ever been attempted?

Doesn’t seem so… so how will we ever know if listing interest bearing tokens can be something that’s beneficial for bancor if we don’t give one a shot?

yeah it has plenty of times, this is the CORE model which was an utter disaster …

It would make more send to “give it a shot” with a small test case… the argument that more size is required for arbitrage is definitely not correct

Apples to oranges…