Possible bDIP Idea - Clarifying Membership Level Criteria

While thinking about trying out the Graph Protocol and maybe trying to create a sub-graph that could monitor for L1 statuses I went to the constitution to take a look for what criteria I should be looking for. Of course having 35k BANK on Eth main-net, but which L2’s to check BANK balances for, which LP pools, and how much in each LP position, or any other valid criteria.

I think these should be added to the constitution accompanied with a process for adding/removing tokens or other metrics that can award L1 status and above…

Before making the actual bDIP post I wanted to make this post to collect a list of all the valid token and LP values.

BANK on Eth Main-Net: Bankless DAO: BANK Token | Address 0x2d94aa3e47d9d5024503ca8491fce9a2fb4da198 | Etherscan
BANK on Polygon: Bankless DAO: BANK Token | Address 0xdb7cb471dd0b49b29cab4a1c14d070f27216a0ab | PolygonScan

Current Criteria




  • “…have provided Liquidity for the Eth/Bank pair, representing at least 150k Bank and its equivalent pairing of ETH.”

What’s Missing

LP Pools:

Other Questions

  1. L1 doesn’t include the option to maintain this rank if value is held in one of the LP positions. Should this be corrected?
  2. L3 & L4 doesn’t specify if both 150k BANK has to be held outside an LP position as well as holding that equal value in an LP position, or if just holding 150k BANK in an LP position is good enough. Is L4 supposed to represent a total value of 300k BANK, or just represent the added risk of holding 150k BANK in an LP position?
  3. Which LP positions qualify for L4? At the moment it just specifies ETH/BANK pairs.
  4. What should be the process for on-boarding/off-boarding qualifying criteria, as in the case of Rari?
  5. How can mixed amounts be added together? (20k BANK on Main-Net but ETH/DAI in UniV3 on polygon for example)
  6. I assume so, but it’s not explicitly stated, does L3&4 require the L2 nomination?


If any one else has any other questions on this topic feel free to add it to the list.

Thanks for reading!

Side note: Once this is defined this criteria could maybe also be used to define Snapshot voting strategies as that also seems to be missing from the constitution. Though that could be a later bDIP.

Poll 1:

Should having a BANK LP position contribute to L1 Status?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Impartial

0 voters

Poll 2:

Should the Snapshot Voting Strategy Include more criteria than, or be identical to, the criteria for what contributes to L1?
  • Include more criteria
  • Same criteria
  • Impartial

0 voters

Poll 3:

Does L3 & L4 Require L2?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Impartial

0 voters

Poll 4:

What Defines L4?
  • Just having 150k BANK worth of an LP position, granting L3 by default.
  • Just having 150k BANK worth of an LP position, excluded from L3.
  • Having both 150k BANK LP position holding 150k BANK, holding a total 300k BANK of value.

0 voters

1 Like

yes, it should be included in L1 calculation, if you have 35K sitting somewhere on chain, you should be able to show it as your L1 proof.

thank you for the post.


Following this mornings Treasury call and raising this question there were some interesting points raised.

One was that L1 should NOT include LP positions as it is currently worded in the constitution. They have since told me they’ve come around to including LP positions, and I’ve come around the other way to keeping it limited to just holding 35k BANK.

I’m aware of contributors who currently, and I have in the passed, maintained L1 status using an LP position. The rationale for not using LP positions, how I understand it, is that it represents BANK that is removed from the total circulating supply. Effectively supply = 1 Billion - (35k * N DAO members)

If we include LP positions that 35k BANK doesn’t get taken out of circulating supply and is still active in the market.

Open to thoughts. I could be swayed either way.

One contributor has suggested that Balancer be deprecated in favour is UniswapV3 via Arrakis the officially DAO endorsed LP pool.

Even though I initially wanted to leave snapshot for a later discussion, the question was raised if the Snapshot Strategy should include only the same criteria as L1, or if it should include more LP positions such as sushi swap where as L1 would exclude it.

Updated with polls and thanks for your reply!

I dig the conversation being brought up!

I think for a lot of these polls the answer is, it depends and deserves a larger conversation.

Really I think we need to re-visit what it means to be the different levels, and clarify that, which will provide answers to the polls, because there are lots of options to this discussion.

As an example, L4 was meant to be a recognition perk for liquidity providers, but I think with the DAO owning our liquidity, and orienting towards that as a policy, it is probably irrelevant now.

To dig into each poll:

  • L1 LP - maybe for ONE liquidity position, say Arrakis, it counts, but for others it doesn’t.

    • The reason why, is providing liquidity for platforms is permissionless. Attempting to support all the positions any contributor creates is untennable, and bad for the DAO as it can break DAO infrastructure when changes happen. I think we likely want to adopt a concentrated liquidity position, that is recognized by the DAO(uniswap and arrakis in this case), and funnel our contributors to provide there.(7~ % APR! :partying_face: )
  • Snapshot criteria - This we would want to align to this above policy.

  • l3 and L4 require l2 - We are getting into Level definition a bit here, so :person_shrugging:

  • What defines l4 - It depends what we want L4 to signify.

My initial thoughts on levels:
L1 - 35k BANK, OR a season pass (COMING SOON) or the appropriate amount of tlBANK (Coming soon)

L2 - Social recognized, with requirements(COMING SOON). - IMO this should be the MOST recognized, as these contributors do the most for the DAO.

L3 - Rename to L1.5(?) or LP(?) or… something else? and start to re-define liquidity providing.

L4 - Depreciate