I really appreciate @TheRealTuna’s efforts in on-boarding other protocols to PoolTogether. This can potentially bring a whole new group of users to us, which could increase adoption and visibility.
While the economics of this proposal are heavily in favour of Badger token holders, I think it’s okay as a trial run. We’ll learn what works and what doesn’t over time. I think we should have dug a little deeper into the economics and logistics of the proposal and developed a deeper consensus in the community.
Now, some feedback:
In terms of the partnership, I think a strong partnership would have been PT helping Badger build the yield source integration. This could have come in the form of a developer grant. Ideally, we wouldn’t have needed this proposal since Badger would have simply created a prize pool for themselves. This proposal isn’t much of a partnership; it’s PT giving away POOL tokens.
Very little to no analysis was done on the economics or logistic of this proposal. Who will be rewarding the pool? If governance decides to reward it, is it worth $500 / week? Or whatever the frequency is? Since it’s a stake prize pool, when rewards run out will governance have to run a proposal to remove it from the automated rewards? There are so many aspects of this that haven’t been analyzed. This proposal was rushed and lacked any detail.
Conditional proposals are very fragile. Essentially, Tuna went and made promises to the Badger DAO that depended on PTIP proposals. This makes governance much more complicated, and should be avoided in the future. What if PT rejected the proposal? Would we then have a proposal to transfer the tokens back?
All that being said, I think this is a worthy experiment. It’s also a great opportunity for the PT community to learn.