NFT Boost for DILL Lockup

I don’t want to go into details here, just get a “feel for the room”, really.

With fennec, we have a very prolific NFT designer in our midst.
There is (seemingly) going to be a collection of NFTs that’s themed after movies, and a couple as rewards for providing LP in certain farms or jars.
Also, most notable, pplpleaser has published PICKLE-specific NFTs.

I would argue that holding these NFTs and making them desireable to hold should be encouraged.

I don’t want to propose a mechanism, but I could imagine getting a boost on your DILL-locked APY allocation in regards to how many NFTs of which rarity you hold. Obviously, holding multiple of the same wouldn’t give extraboost.

But let’s imagine a person holding 1 1/1 and 5 1/20 of any PICKLE NFT would add 15% to the APY of their respective DILL APY allocation or something

Would that be something the community would like to expand on further?
We could take a page out of BADGER’s book (although I understand they have a different system in regards to allocating rewards overall), or cook up our own pickle’d soup.

  • Task the Team to Explore this until EoM June
  • Do nothing

0 voters

3 Likes

I think this idea would attract more users to our awesome community and reward loyal users

Other than DILL APY boosting I was thinking maybe we can give each type of NFT different super powers and max power to a wallet having all the NFTs existed.

As you mentioned DILL boost is one type of power

I was thinking for example;

Referring fennec’s labeling

1 series: %10 discount on performance fee + %15 additional boost on any farm
2 series: %15 discount on performance fee + %100 refund of gas cost paid in tx time pickle price (for the tx executed in pickle app)
3 series: +%40 DILL APY booster etc.

I think we need additional mechanics to make them desirable for holding , so maybe we propose NFT powers start working after at least 1 month holding in a wallet ?

As a summary I would be really interested to explore this further however we need technical suggestion about what we are asking is feasable, safe and doable I believe

I think in the TENS of percent is a bit steep, also making it more complicated based on what-NFT-does-what is adding too much complexity.

If kept simple, each NFT would represent X amount of DILL.

1/1 could be 2000 DILL

1/20 could be 250 DILL

you’d still need to map the DILL claims to each single NFT so I don’t go and send the NFT around to different addresses, claim and reclaim…

I think it should really be a numbers-driven approach, taking into account the NFT Roadmap (if there is such a thing of course) so we don’t inflate rewards beyond a reasonable measure.

I like this idea, but my main concern is how much time would it take to develop this. Probably would need to re-audit and redeploy dill contract. Ect.

1 Like

It has already been said on the discord that this would be a separate claim, but the reward could be based on DILL held by address * NFTs held by address

Ah, in that case I think it may be worth investigating how much it would take to come to fruition!

Fennec is an amazing artist and I think this would help the protocol overall!.

As much as I love the idea of turning yield farming into an RPG / magic the gathering style card game, we should be really careful with anything we consider here. Consider this cautionary tale: Subscribe to read | Financial Times

For those who don’t want to read the long article, here’s a summary. In 1987, a French insurance company L’Abeille Vie offer a special deal to its richer clients, a Fixed Price Arbitrage Life Insurance Contract. Prices for the funds were published each Friday, and clients were allowed to switch funds at those prices anytime before the next price was published, even if markets moved in the meantime. L’Abeille Vie was not alone in the madness. Other insurers, including Axa and a group now owned by Allianz, also offered “known price” contracts to rich customers.

In the 1990s, these companies realized the mistake they had made and tried to convince customers to modify their contracts. Most customers didn’t realize how golden this contract was, and swapped it out for newer contracts for some cash incentives or something. But in 1997, L’Abeille Vie was still selling these ridiculous offerings. One man took out contracts for his whole family and deposited 8000 Euros. Every week, like clockwork, he’d switch to whichever fund had done the best that week compared to last week’s prices. Despite court cases and continual changes to the rules (no more faxes, must deliver by hand, etc etc etc), the family pays someone to hand-deliver these changes every friday. They are growing their wealth 68% a year. They’re probably worth $30m by now, using that 8000 euro initial investment. The current counterparty to this contract? Aviva plc, a British multinational insurance company.

What’s the meaning of this story? Any powerups you offer are likely to have effects both further reaching and longer reaching in time than you expect. Be very careful.

2 Likes

That’s an interesting story :wink:

There definitely needs to be a provision to make sure the boost cannot be passed around at will and claimed in multiples. I’m sure there’s a way to ascertain the holding period of the NFT - let’s say you need to have held it at least 1 DILL boost period to claim the boost and the it only applies to your locked DILL (which would be a shame, since that would peg the NFTs to PICKLE price more or less).

Do current NFTs get boosted, or just future NFTs?

Yes of course i don’t think it would be sustainable to have tens of percent boosts, I was just giving example

As discussed in discord maybe we could separate this functionality with a brand new smart contract and fetch the data from DILL contracts for certain wallet, calculate the additional APY and assign pickle claims to a new button like ‘NFT rewards’.

for mapping DILL claims to NFTs maybe we could just stake our NFTs to this new smart contract so that would make things easy to calculate and secure the possibility of NFT exchanges. That would make it possible to assign different power to different NFTs as well, again I’am not technical person just speculating here.

I think all NFTs in existance and future ones should be counted in

2 Likes

staking NFTs would remove them from my metamask, and they need to be tradeable in order to make this idea viable imho.

checking transfer dates makes more sense in this regard, I think.

I think your NFTs should be locked if you want to get NFT boost, you could unstake from contract and trade if you would like, not sure if checking NFT transaction dates would work in terms of security. Again its best to get some feedback from a developer to finalize the design for this.

no need for “security”
on claim/payout date (ie at the same moment DILL rewards are calculated):

  • for each PICKLE NFT contract, collect the holding addresses
  • check the date of when that NFT was credited to each oft these addresses (should be 1+ DILL periods to be elegible)
  • check if these addresses have DILL locked up
  • calculate the boost according to DILL lockup and NFT rarity
  • add
  • provide claim

One of the points is to have these NFTs publicly available on e.g. opensea so there’s a market and some value to them.

if it is doable, I’am cool with that. What is the next step ?

We need to get a quorum to get this moving right ?

probably.

at this stage, let’s see if this idea has enough support and if the team (@Larry_Cucumber , @leekuanjew, @chimaera, @0xkoffee etc) and the artist (for now: @fennec_bright) go along

While it is good for holders of the NFT, I am not sure it is good for the protocol in general, nor do I think it’s good to boost existing NFTs albeit I own a lot, I think they are generally too scarce for it to be fair, and that even if it was implemented it would have to be a lot less than 1/1 = 2000 DILL and 1/20 being 250 DILL so it may not be worth it if 1/1 = 200 DILL and 1/20 = 25 DILL

Dill voters won’t vote to be diluted by NFT holders with zero benefit to themselves or the protocol imo

1 Like

Argument:

We have awesome and attractive NFTs.
Making NFTs somewhat profitable and tieing that in with DILL locks might improve visibility of the project and lead to more DILL lockup.

The rewards should marginally profitable, but only in conjunction with DILL of course.

The rates, as outlined in the original poll, are TBD - also taking into account the current and projected circulation of Pickled NFTs, of course.

Voting “YES” would only mean to further investigate and come to a numbers-driven, educated decision.

To tackle the notion of some kind of “power-up” on Pickle Finance let’s first look at the current avenues by which users could be rewarded.

  1. Increasing PICKLE reward share either in a specific Farm or multiple Farms
  2. Increasing PICKLE reward share via fee revenue distribution
  3. Decreasing Jar strategy fees
  4. Decreasing ETH gas fees

Number 4 seems the least attractive since it has the least to do with the ecosystem of Pickle Finance. 3 seems possible but probably tricky to implement. The first two options seem the most viable but it gets complicated to determine a straight bonus that a person should be eligible for by holding an NFT. I think it becomes most helpful to consider what we currently have for rewarding users: PICKLE and DILL.

If an NFT should present any “reward mechanism” to a user, it should revolve around either PICKLE or DILL. I would say that DILL makes the most sense because it is already the mechanism which yields increased rewards. But because PICKLE is inherent to the ecosystem itself, anything that benefits Pickle Finance should increase the value of PICKLE as well. We could also introduce an entirely new Pickle Finance mechanic such as distribution mechanic strictly for these NFT holders.

  1. The NFT is a representation of an amount of PICKLE which can be melted/reminted at a set value in PICKLE tokens
  2. Pickle emissions gain a new avenue for distribution: a portion of emissions are claimable by NFT holders
    3… The NFT gives a user a set amount of DILL or a % bonus. The latter is problematic if a user has no DILL
    4… The NFT adds an amount of “time power” to a person’s DILL lock, ie they always have a base 1 month added, etc, or reduces the decay rate of “time power” for DILL. This again is problematic if a user has no DILL

As 3 and 4 present issues for users without DILL I imagine the first two to be the most palatable to the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem. If rather than maintaining focus around DILL/PICKLE as the sole reward mechanic for Pickle Finance we move to this newfangled NFT bonus thing, we need to consider that one of the merits of an NFT is that it may be valuable to anybody as it is something that can exist out of a tiny ecosystem (ie Pickle Finance). So while many people would be totally uninterested in DILL perks, almost anybody could see at least some inherent value in an NFT that directly awards a user with tokens whether that be after melting it or by allowing a weekly claim of PICKLE either because they are eligible for emissions claims or because they are directly given an amount of DILL.

Now all of that said I think there are still major drawbacks to 2. One of the primary goals of never ending PICKLE emissions is to incentivize use of the platform. In no way does siphoning a portion of these emissions to a few individuals help accomplish this goal. The notion of giving a user a set amount of DILL is somewhat attractive but DILL is complicated and also forces a user to interact with the DILL system. An NFT that is “redeemable” for PICKLE tokens seems to have the least amount of total impact on the ecosystem as well as being the one that would make the most sense to a platform outsider. It also seems by far the least complex and needs the least considerations of finer details and impact on existing systems. There is also no need to worry about percentages or “reward bonuses” getting out of control.

So that was a lot of stream of thought and word spew but long story short I think the only option that makes sense is to have the NFTs = an amount of PICKLE. Everything else would either be overly complex/risky and/or only have niche value for active users of Pickle Finance. Hopefully I had at least one helpful thought.

1 Like

just addressing a few points here:

  • the NFTs should not be parasitic. this means they should only work in conjunction with DILL.
  • the NFTs should not have an “intrinsic” value attached to them, so they should not be equated with a certain amount of PICKLE.
  • the NFTs should not be DILL-like in terms of the DAO, so they should only affect the boost, not the voting escrow power of DILL.
  • the NFT boost should not “stack” (holdin 10 1/20s should count as 1 1/20).
  • the NFTs should remain tradeable, so locking up or melting down is not desirable.

that being said I could see holding an NFT in an address that has DILL locked would increase the boost (a simple multiplier) or add a little something on top (set aside x % for NFTs, divide that between those who have an NFT and a DILL Lockup in relation to their DILL lock-up and the rarity of the NFT).