[Proposal] Badger Trial POOL Distribution

Hello Pooltogether community,

The Badger proposal to contribute 2400 Badger from the Badger Treasury to the Pooltogether Badger Pool is doing well and has a good chance at going to snapshot vote. This would mean 200 Badger per week for 12 weeks in the Badger prize pool. This is a $110,000 commitment from the Badger community if it passes.
Badger proposal can be seen here:

I would like to now propose a commitment from the Pooltogether community to help build this pool and this relationship. I propose granting the Badger Pool a trial period as a governance pool for 12 weeks. I think a fair number of POOL would be 50 POOL per day as I think this is in line with the commitment from the Badger community. This is far less than the current rates of the UNI and COMP pool but given that there is talk of reducing all pools I see this a a good starting point for this trial period. Badger is a large and successful community and I hope our community can see the value in building this relationship and rewarding the Badger communities commitment.

Summary of proposal:
Allocate 50 POOL/day for 12 weeks to the Badger pool once we’ve received funding of the Badger pool from the Badger Treasury. A trial period as a governance pool.
This is a $100,000 commitment from the Pooltogether community to match the $110,000 commitment from the Badger community.

If you are in support of this proposal vote “For”;if you don’t support this proposal vote “Against.”

Grant Badger pool 50 POOL per day for 12 weeks upon funding from Badger Treasury
  • For
  • Against
  • Abstain

0 voters


My only condition is to have a badger emote on their discord with the pool logo eyes :eyes:

Badger has a great community and I think this will be a good partnership!


This seems like a must. Badger with Pool logo eyes emote for each community!

1 Like

Could we not also have this relationship with Uniswap treasury if we managed to launch a proposal for it over there? Or any project with big treasury funds. I’m pretty sure the UNI community would be behind this if the same was proposed to them.

I also read some of the posts on the badger forum. I liked one of the ideas proposed that the badger treasury could be earning some fee from the pool too, as in their treasury could be taking POOL onto their books.

I think there is a really powerful model here for synergising with lots of different treasuries in the space.


I absolutely love this idea if only as a purely experimental use of governance.

Disparate governance communities negotiating with each other and sharing the benefits of the protocols they manage. Holy shit, this is blowing my mind.

1 Like

we can also bring in some new projects using part of their token offering funds, they can use Pool as one of their launching perks.

sounds good to me. I am “for”

I like the idea of community treasuries being able to earn income from the pool. Would not want to see individuals be able to have that luxury, but approved community treasuries I’d like to see rewarded.

1 Like

Here are my thoughts:


  • I love the initiative @TheRealTuna has taken and I think supporting community led initiatives early on is super important
  • I love experimenting with partnership with other protocols and moving quickly
  • I love the idea of experimenting with limited runs of POOL distribution


  • I don’t like that there is not an actual yield source and therefore it has to be a temporary prize pool. I’m a bit worried about show-casing temporary prize pools as people might be disappointed when they end.

That’s my perspective, overall, I’m supportive of doing it as an experiment!


Just thinking more about treasury synergies… taking UNI for example since it has both a yield source and a treasury.

How difficult is it to amend the protocol to allow the pool creator to:
a). Allow option for redistribution of the drip to another address i.e a treasury.
b). Specify the % split of the redistribution.
c). Specify which currency it applies to. UNI treasury could collect only POOL while also subsidising the pool with UNI from their treasury, which the POOL treasury would vice versa be collecting a part of.

Both treasuries would be distributing from their treasuries to each other and probably forming a lasting partnership. The other benefit for UNI here is that while the UNI is on POOL’s treasury, it is also supporting additional rewards to the weekly pool.

I just really love the potential these cross treasury distribution models seem to present.

1 Like

Protocol’s taking a stake in other protocols. It’s sort of like an investment for both treasuries. If UNI and POOL did some sort of token swap between their treasuries, UNI would know that the rewards would increase each week in PoolTogether… further incentivises lockup of UNI while they would also have a sizeable stake presumably and interest in the success of PoolTogether. Like how cool is that? Redistribution of the treasury and the tokens never come to the market in the foreseeable future.

By tokenswap, what I mean is the parameters could be set something like:
Last 1 year
Take a 50% fee of the POOL token from the drip that POOL vote to apply to the POOL
It could correspond to 1% of the POOL supply.
POOL treasury also takes a 50% fee collecting the UNI (but not the POOL from the drip of course). Both treasuries accumulate each others token over the course of 1 year.

1 Like

I don’t know what’s better.

A. Using UNI share in interest earned to buyback POOL and distribute the purchased POOL to UNI treasury.


B. Paying UNI share in interest earned in UNI returned to their treasury.

I think I prefer B because less gas cost and treasuries won’t just be dumping on us later.

This is a recipe for success though. Communities will benefit from feeding pooltogether.

1 Like

Is there not an option C that the UNI goes onto our books, redistributed on compound and interest goes back to the weekly winner? Just how it currently works? Think it’s win win with that at least, hadn’t thought about the other options.

Think A might be unattractive to UNI community because it’s selling pressure on their token, B would probably be ideal for them, but less optimum for us that option C I think.

I think the treasury dumping another’s token thing is unlikely because if it happens with one treasury we can decide to dump their token too. So both communities know it’s sort of an act of war to offload each others token. It’s similar to them just dumping their own token except they’ve burned a partnership in the process.

1 Like

Right, its kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction of both tokens. It would only probably be viable if one protocol has an outsized proportion of the other protocols token. And i imagine that both would be incentivized along the way to only put in the same amount of value to the other protocols treasury as they are for ours.