PieDAO $BAL Rewards policy

On June 23 $BAL has gone live, as described in announcement post here.

BTC++ pools and USD++ are both eligible to $BAL rewards.

Distribution policy

$BAL tokens reward will be redistributed to Pies holder on a weekly basis, within 7days from the original transfer, following the PieDAO reports calculated by the balancer team which can found on the GitHub repo here.

Liquidity providers in BTC++ and USD++ and future Pie will be rewarded as expected from other shared pool.

Pies in Pools policy

Double dipping is defined as the act of taking a PieDAO Pie, for instance BTC++, and add that into a separate Shared pool in Balancer to get double $BAL rewards.

Normally those rewards would be lost unless the Balancer pool containing BTC++ also supports BAL in the first place so that they cannot be extracted. PieDAO being a governance layer on top of the pools can instead implement a distribution strategy to save those rewards.

A similar situation happens for Uniswap pools, BAL tokens would be normally sent to the Uniswap pool where those are lost forever as there is no way to extract them.

Distribution proposal in practice

Exclusively for weeks number 1, 2, 3 BAL rewards will be distributed to regular users as expected. Smart contract holding Pie (ie: BTC++) such as Uniswap or other BTP pools will not receive the BAL reward, instead the LPs which have contributed to those pools will receive the BAL as if they have been holding the tokens in their regular wallet.

Moving forward starting at week 4, I propose that BAL rewards which would have been otherwise lost are ONLY redistributed to pools and markets that PieDAO considers of value for the PieDAO ecosystem.

The current pools I’m proposing are:

Address Type Pairs
0xd4dbf96db2fdf8ed40296d8d104b371adf7dee12 Balancer Shared BTC++ / WETH
0x0b5e26829B72654620cD431E685FD71ad956E58E Uniswap V1 BTC++ / WETH
0x7d2F4bcB767eB190Aed0f10713fe4D9c07079ee8 Balancer shared USD++/BTC++

How to add a new pool to the double-dip program

  1. Open a PIP in the governance forum explaining why the pool is beneficial to the PieDAO ecosystem.
  2. Open a vote into the DAO with an IPFS hash of the proposal for DOUGH holders to decide.

A template can be provided to facilitate the process.


You can find how the distribution looks like for BTC++ holders right now without the double-dip calculation. Rewards to regular address (IsPoll == no) will be distributed shortly.

I will put out a DAO vote to ask for consensus about this proposal soon.


The proposal makes complete sense to me.

I’d like to add a few more that I think would be very beneficial to DOUGH holders and users of PieDAO’s pies.


Obviously PieDAO is a big user of both Balancer and Aragon, so it only seems normal that those pools are added.
BTC++ and USD++ are holders of BAL through the reward program, and I hope many are also ANT holders given the whole infrastructure runs on it.

I’ll try to create the proposal after yours assuming it has passed


Is this the pool you are proposing?

I’d also like to propose adding this: $BAL/$USD++



yes that’s the one {{+random stuff to get to 20 char}}

min 20 gone :slight_smile:

So this seems reasonable but I think it’s very bad practice to introduce this retroactively.

If I’m understanding this whoever has BTC++ outside of these suggested pools currently will be in an unfair position as the rules are changing without notice. Honestly this undermines trust in the system.

Second questions is what happens to BAL rewards from pools which aren’t whitelisted?

With all due respect Alex, we are already midway into Week 4. There are many people who have spent gas fees and swapping fees to attain USD++ for the extra Balancer rewards, and also the information assymmetry of this post have lead people thinking that all was status quo regarding the Balancer distribution.

At the very minimum, I believe there should be 1 week of advance notice for any governance changes regarding Balancer distribution. (i.e) Week 5. to not penalize USD++ minters, which are mostly currently in the offending pool that we all know.

Lastly, where do these $BAL goes to if they are confiscated retroactively from people who are following the meta? Wouldn’t this set a bad precedent for the DAO’s governance?

I would also like for an open discussion on the elephant in the room: The following pool which have been left out:
USD++ 64% COMP 2% cUSDT 34% which currently has $1.176m of liquidity. ($732,052 of USD++)


w.r.t the conversation on Discord.

Alexintosh has clarified that there was a misunderstanding and there is and never will be any ongoing attempt to retroactively apply changes. Other members of the DAO have voiced similar opinions.

(i.e) if any governance poll passes, the changes will apply to the distribution week after, if I didn’t get this wrong.

I rest my case and I am happy with how this discussion went.

Do add on to my reply if I missed anything from the discussion in discord.

EDIT: To be pedantic, Alright from a DAO context anyone is free to propose anything they like. But the main stakeholders right now are against retrospectively applying changes. The rest of the proposal is still up for discussion.

1 Like

If anytime we end up with the need to implement this we’ll update the proposal.

Also to clarify the pools Finance is talking about like USD++ / BAL and BTC++ / BAL were created after this initial post.

Post: Jun-24-2020 1:56:22 PM +UTC
BTC++ / BAL created at Jun-24-2020 04:31:46 PM +UTC
USD++ / BAL created at Jun-24-2020 07:45:58 PM +UTC

I can confirm I personally do not support, and never will, retroactive changes.

Also thanks @Finance_Geek for clarifying :slight_smile:

I want to suggest adding this pool to whitelist - https://pools.balancer.exchange/#/pool/0x302abcedf32b8534970a70c21eb848fc9af19f31

So it’s 60% USD++ / 38% cUSDT since USDT is not present in USD++ I think it makes sense to have a pair and then since it’s cUSDT there is 2% of COMP so that COMP rewards don’t go to waste.