Voting for WAGDIE ERC20

Voting Power for Wagdie ERC20

:skull: Abstract | Let’s add support for WAGDIE ERC20 in snapshot votes.

:skull: Motivation | Some community members send their wagdie nfts to the farm and receive an ERC20 that is redeemable for any wagdie from the farm. Pooling unwanted wagdies in the farm and holding the ERC20 instead is good because it gives new members more nft options to choose from. However, this currently loses voting power. However, community members that send their wagdies to the farm lose the voting power of those wagdies.

:skull: Rationale | Since WAGDIE ERC20 is redeemable for WAGDIE NFTs from the farm, it should keep the same voting power as a wagdie.

:skull: Steps to Implement & Specifications | Someone would need to update the voting strategies on to add a strategy that adds voting power equal to an address’ WAGDIE ERC20 balance. Not sure how to do this but it might involve a subgraph that queries for address WAGDIE ERC20 balance.

The WAGDIE ERC20 token address is: 0x6d627C33eeA1a1b4b139C0B788010fF50B80B513

:skull: Timeline | Up to whoever implements it, but it would probably be quick (1 day) for someone who is familiar with ERC20 voting in snapshot.

:skull: Overal Cost | I’ll pay 2.02 WAGDIE ERC20 tokens to whoever wants to implement this.

:skull: Other Considerations |
The Farm has multiple associated tokens;

  • WAGDIE ERC20 ($WAGDIE)-- this is minted when wagdie nfts are sent to the farm, and used to redeem wagdies from the farm. It represents a typical cannon fodder wagdie.
  • Staked WAGDIE ERC20 ($xWAGDIE) – this accrues trading fees from the farm and rebases relative to WAGDIE ERC20.
  • A token for liquidity provision ($WAGDIEWETH) – this represents the sushiswap liquidity positions that facilitate exchanging $WAGDIE and ETH.
  • Staked LP tokens ($xWAGDIEWETH) – liquidity providers can stake $WAGDIEWETH to earn trading fees from the farm.

I’m considering three options;

  1. Only support $WAGDIE – this is easiest to implement, and makes since since the only reasons for having the other tokens are some defi aspect that is incongruent with this world.
  2. Support $WAGDIE and $xWAGDIE – this might be harder to implement because of the rebasing. Also the yield on $xWAGDIE isn’t high enough to justify the gas fees of staking, so it’s unlikely this would matter now for core wagdie members.
  3. Support all four tokens – I’m against this because; it’s unclear how much weight the liquidity tokens should have, it might be harder to implement and hence take longer, and there is no lore-based reason to have the liquidity tokens.
1 Like

In all considerations I believe we assume 1 $WAGDIE = 1 WAGDIE (no sear, no stake).

Aka 1:1 voting ratio for the ERC20, makes it among the least powerful voting methods, but it is better than nothing.

I have no objection to it, considering floor-listed WAGDIE still hold their votes, and this is functionally the same (with extra steps).

1 Like


How does staking impact voting? We could maybe consider the same modifier for $WAGDIE if this think of it as a wagdies β€˜staked’ in the farm?

Current system is:

WAGDIE = 1 Vote
Staked WAGDIE = 2 Votes
Token of Concord = 2 Votes
Seared WAGDIE = 5 Votes
Seared Staked WAGDIE = 6 Votes

I would say it’s more like it’s listed on the floor.
Putting wagdie in pool increases total available supply.
Putting wagdie in forsaken lands decreases it.

Therefore, I think 1:1 is most fair.

1 Like