Modify BCP allocation

Old:
33.3% Ethereum
33.3% Bitcoin
33.3% Defi++
_____70% Defi-L
_____30% Defi-S

New:
33.3% Ethereum
33.3% Bitcoin
33.3% Defi++
_____70% Defi-L
_____20% Defi-S
_____10% Play

1 Like

In this case it’s more a modification of the Defi++ than the BCP

1 Like

Correct.

Otherwise, we could reduce the allocation of DeFi++ in BCP and add PLAY to it directly.

2 Likes

I’m against personally. It always sounds nice to have diversification within a single pie - but when you actually break out the implied token allocation (here: 1 BCP would contain < 0.3% MLN and <0.1% of several PLAY tokens) you quickly realize you’re just wasting space.

Adding in PLAY effectively doubles (or more) the transaction cost to fully redeem BCP into all of its components as PLAY has the most tokens of all our pies.

I argue leave our flagship products alone and then in the future we can created layered pies (e.g. PLAY, SCALE, BCP) at different ratios.

But as an Economist I can tell you this idea of messing with existing pie allocations will do minimal to aid adoption (it will likely even hurt adoption) and have a noticeable negative impact on the NAV-price convergence because we make arbitrage significantly more expensive.

Now of course, adding just the PLAY token might be only 1/3rd more cost because we have all of the Sushi LPs based in DOUGH; but it’s just unnecessarily complicated.

I’m all for rebalancing pies, maybe even adding 1 token if it obviously fits the theme, but BCP is a flagship product and NFTs are a highly cyclical and media reactionary product with low volume.

It explicitly damages BCP to put them in my opinion.

2 Likes

I agree with you .

All tokens in $PLAY are “Defi” ?

I’m against modify BCP or DEFI++ to wedge PLAY in.

BCP is sold as a balanced pie between the two largest corner stones of the market and DEFI++, we shouldn’t significantly deviate from that and I think the only acceptable modification to BCP would be modifying what is in the underlying DEFI+S and DEFI+L.

DEFI++ is marketed as an all encompassing DEFI product to get exposure to that sector, nothing in play fits into “defi” so it wouldn’t make sense there.

I think a “Kitchen Sink” (every sector we offer) pie would be a good idea, but that would need its own thought out proposal.

3 Likes

I understand your points with the challenges related to the implementation & costs of incorporating PLAY. Perhaps the change that I described is not the best method to achieve my actual goal- which would be to enhance the diversification and risk/return profile of BCP by adding exposure to NFT platforms. I don’t care if BCP has Cryptopunks or Unisocks, but I think BCP could benenfit from having some modest exposure to a few of today’s most important players in the NFT space. NFT platforms only… decentralized or not.

I agree with you and Adam.

I don’t believe most people who are buying BCP and Defi++ would be interested in holding Play.

3 Likes

PLAY is plurality ENJIN, MANA, and Axies. I understand the idea of putting some of those into BCP. But I don’t think it fits the theme and I think it noticeably reduces the quality of the product both for arbitrage concerns previously mentioned and because NFTs are highly volatile and media cyclical.

I feel like NFTs are at their 2017 phase, and I think we can make a total PieDAO pie that brings in bcp, play, scale, and infra (as discussed in discord) while keeping each sub-pie modular and consistent.

Maybe I just don’t understand the target demo you guys are going after with your products. Exactly what type of investor are you trying to attract? I’m kind of surpised that you would say most BCP investors would not be interested in PLAY. If PLAY lacked investment merrit, why was the product created at all?

2 Likes

I hear you. Maybe the time is not right, or the right opportunity set is not present to justify adding NFT exposure to the BCP right now.

I guess I am just a little taken-aback, because if everyone felt this way, why was PLAY created in the first place?

IMO, the community should have general agreement that an index/idea is actually investable before creating a product around it. People aren’t buying token baskets to day-trade for the most part, they’re trying to express opinions on longer-term investment trends. After seeing the skepticism for the product, I’m realizing I probably shouldn’t haven’t any liquidity staked there…

I think I’ve already expressed opinions on other things you’ve said, but I did want to respond to the below

A Pie shouldn’t be created because the DAO thinks they are a good investment, the DAO should remain agnostic as to what is and isn’t a good investment. Rather the DAO should offer novel products that track sectors or other aspects of the market (volatility or performance metrics) that are robust in doing what they claim. Ultimately it is up to the individual to determine if a sector (or Pie) is a good investment for them. If folks are interested in the long-term investment trends of DEFI + ETH + BTC then BCP is for them, if they are interested in just NFTs/gaming then PLAY is for them.

1 Like

My concerns are largely with the new construction presented. BCP includes DeFi++ today, and so revising the +S/+L ratio within BCP would mean either:

  • Removing DeFi++ from BCP, and adding PLAY, +S, and +L at the ratio described
  • Changing DeFi++ allocation, rather, to include PLAY at the ratio described

The first rather aggressively highlight the arbitrage issue @cmercado4u raised. The second seems counter to DeFi++ goal?

I’m also struggling with “balanced” in the name, it strikes me as implying 1:1:, and I definitely am not interested in BCP approaching 25% each Bitcoin, Ethereum, DeFi, and Metaverse.

I am totally open to a second pie in the style of BCP which extends DeFi to a broader dApp slice.

1 Like

I like sector pies (PLAY, SCALE) and I’m not in favor of including any of those in BCP or really changing BCP at all.

I like the idea of a “total” pie but I feel like we should keep that on the back burner until the menu of pies is larger.

9 Likes

I am staked in PLAY/DOUGH and am a strong bull on NFTs/Metaverse; but it’s about volatility. PLAY brings a unique opportunity to have a wide exposure to the entire sector; but that sector is extremely volatile with often low transaction volumes and extreme reactivity to the news cycle. (Big media is attacking NFTs hard on environmental impact rn lol).

I think BCP, as a flagship product, doesn’t need any volatility added, even tho I personally have a significant amount of PLAY.

I definitely get what you’re saying in terms of “why even make something if it’s not something we’d recommend people include in their portfolio”.

I do think eventually, there will need to be a $TOTES pie with all the pieDAO products that regularly is adjusted as new indexes come in. I just don’t think BCP should be it.

1 Like