BIP#28: To adjust the requirement of the 30-day average floor price

Title: To adjust the requirement of the 30-day average floor price
BIP by: Hill |
Idea Record: Discord
Status: Active BIP


The Bluechip Eligibility Requirements were voted in May 2022, but the current market conditions may require updates to these requirements.

Details of BIP#7:

For example, the current floor prices of Doodles, Moonbirds, and CloneX are around 3 ETH, which is below the 10 ETH threshold required by the eligibility requirements.


From a risk management perspective, it’s important to note that liquidation efficiency is actually the key to the protocol debt. BendDAO’s auction records demonstrate that there’s no direct correlation between liquidation efficiency and the current floor price. Despite their lower floor prices, the community has shown strong liquidity support when liquidation was triggered, and all NFTs were successfully liquidated.

The adjustment of floor price settings is to better align with the current market conditions. This will allow more high-quality NFT collections to join the BendDAO community and serve a broader range of NFT holders, benefiting the overall protocol development and the NFT ecosystem. Moreover, veBEND’s profit-sharing may potentially increase as well.


A snapshot will be created if it gets enough community feedback.

  • To remove the floor price limit
  • To lower to 3 ETH
  • To lower to 5 ETH
  • Keep the current requirement (10 ETH)

0 voters

1 Like

No matter whatever the result is, I would like to share some thoughts here:

  1. Lending business is the business of rating assets: listed or not, LTV, liquidation parameters, building mode to rate the assets is important.
  2. Keep the assets high quality is important, there will be always protocols to launch assets aggressively, they can run the lending business grow fast, but they may not going to make it in long term, cos lending business is the business that once the bad debts happened, no matter how much money in treasury or how much revenue it has, it can’t afford the bad debt from the bad assets.
  3. Like CEX listing, most of the exchanges launching shit coins to earn money by fee, whoever dominate the market keep listing higher bar, without that, the protocol or exchange can’t get most users from the market trust, CEX like binance didn’t list much tokens in bear market. Trust building is the most important thing in web3.
  4. BendDAO is the most trust worth lending protocol, and should keep that. That’s why Puddgy and DeGod those project care about their holder to get liquidity from lending protocol in one way, but the most important thing BendDAO can provide for them, is consensus of bluechips, once they listed in BendDAO, they are real bluechips. If BendDAO listing assets like shit for run the game faster instead of longer, would be a sad thing TBH.

Every single big decision, whatever make it long term but harder, choice it. Those good projects will make 10e in the end, we can wait the bull market to come, there won’t be much people borrowing money in bear market, follow the market is not the leading protocol, the real strong people/protocol lead instead of follow. Whoever makes the rule win the game, whoever play the game made by others lost the game in long term.

1 Like

He is correct:
Firstly, we cannot judge a project as bluechip based on a floor price of 10 ETH.
Second Come to think of it, if we had the power to decide which projects are bluechips, wouldn’t bend be a lot stronger?
Third, when we first invested in benddao it was because we believed in the founding team, through many crises, the pirates and the team that showed us how they do things. That’s it, the protocol is running great so trust the team.
As he said, if we decide which NFT is going to be blue-chip then the game will be great…

There is not only one view in BendDAO dev team, which I think it’s health, if there is only one view in a team, that would be horrible.

I am just sharing my personal view here and I will vote by my veBend for [Keep the current requirement].

I am ok with removing the limitation if community decide to remove it. But I am voting for No for lowering the floor price.

People who think need to change the floor price should come to share the view by themselves. Share and discuss the view publicly would always be a good thing.

It would be ridiculous that want to list one project like BAKC and change the floor price to 5eth and the BAKC floor price drop to 3eth after the rule changed.

1 Like

Keeping the floor price correct also has its benefits, but we should not work too mechanically when market conditions change, we should be well aware that the market is currently in a downtrend, and the mechanically keeping the floor price unchanged will make us lose potential market share to competitors. I still support removing floor price and flexibly listing bluechip NFT

Remove the limitation is ok, but as it removed, more projects will come to vote, veBend holder need be the gate keeper instead of greedy listing bad assets.

10e is not an easy to archive for NFT projects while trading value is easy to archive in long term especially the opensea forced to remove the trading fee by blur before.

If opensea remove the trading fee in the future and a project can set the royalties to 0 and wash trading to listed in BendDAO and attack BendDAO. But the high floor price will make the project hard to do wash trading, cos once they pump the price to 10e, the holders can dump it to the project creator.

1 Like

yes, in order to maintain the protocol well, we still need to set high standards in NFT bluechip addition, the community needs to keep the standards high and discuss thoroughly with new collections. Because in addition to the floor price, we have many other criteria to evaluate the collection

I agree with Pirate that any NFT project getting pumped - borrow - dump is very dangerous for BendDAO, especially when the NFT market in general is still very young. So we need to find solution(s) that allows us to not lose market share for smaller asset borrowing, while managing the risks, that is what a smart project community is responsible for. I do not underestimate the determination and ability of creators intent on creating multiple wallets, wash-trade, borrow and exit. Suggest just facilitating P2P borrowing / lending for low-price NFTs so the main treasury cannot be touched.

If we do use the main deposits for lending to small NFTs, will also need some trust that OGs and holders are not complete idiots and will set very strict criteria.

1 Like

And people are saying that Doodles, CloneX and Moonbirds that are floor price like 3eth, so we need to lower the floorprice to 3eth, this is wrong!

When Doodles, CloneX, Moonbirds are listed in BendDAO, they are all 10eth+, even 20eth+, they are liquidated well and don’t bring BendDAO any bad debts.

The NFT listing floor price and the NFT still in BendDAO is not the same thing. These third NFTs as long as they can liquidated fast, we would happy to see them still listed in BendDAO even they are 1eth.

The requirement shouldn’t be changed by the floorprice of NFT listed in BendDAO.