maBEETS — one or two reliquarys? V2.0
On March 1, 2023 at 12 noon (UTC) the new maBEETS system will be introduced on Beethoven X protocol. So far, the fBEETS token has been relevant for the right to vote for the distribution of emissions or for governance but that is about to change.
:DE: Deutsche Version hier
Attention! Due to a calculation error on my part, the second table (see below) has displayed incorrect values. Enclosed now the corrected version! Please also note the extended conclusion! I apologize for the irritations!
What is the Reliquary?
With the introduction of the new reliquary contract, the previous rights to vote will be replaced with a new system: Relics.
A Relic is a financial NFT containing an arbitrary amount of fBEETS and storing the (average) period of deposit. This allows the ability to bind voting rights to the holding time of stored tokens without preventing withdrawal. These maturity (time) adjusted fBEETS are known as maBEETS.
That sounds complicated at first but simply put: the longer I hold my position, the higher my voting rights increase until they reach their maximum after 11 weeks.
This increase occurs in discrete steps, each corresponding to a period of exactly one week.
If I reinvest the emissions I receive as an owner of a Relic into this exact Relic every week, then the average starting time changes. The newly deposited tokens are calculated proportionally with a time span of 0 into the total.
sample calculation
To illustrate this, here’s an example: if my Relic contains 140 tokens that are 7 days old and I deposit 10 more tokens, then this applies:
The longer my average holding period has been, the less it will be diluted by further deposits. The lower the additional amount is compared to the previous contribution, the lower the dilution.
Consequences of the investment decision
This leads me to an interesting consideration: Under what conditions can it happen that dilution causes me not to advance to the next higher level at the turn of the week?
Given the case that the weekly payout is 2% (which is admittedly quite high), after 10 weeks my Relic will reach an average age of 62.51 days, which is not enough to break the 63-day threshold, so I lose one week!
Workaround
How can I avoid this? First of all, I have to realize that this is just a theoretical consideration, with a lower interest rate I don’t reach the problem within 11 weeks and after that, the average age stays above 11 weeks consistently, so at the highest level.
However, if the assumption (2%) is correct, then one possibility is not to pay the distributions into the same Relic, but to open a new one for that. Since Relics are represented by NFTs, I can easily open several entities using the same wallet address.
In this case, the first Relic always remains at the originally invested amount and the average age always corresponds to the real age. The second relic now only reaches the average age of 36.39 days after 11 weeks, so it misses several level ascents on its part. But you could avoid that by opening another relic, or by paying the profit into the first relic, which can no longer be diluted over the threshold now.
Why is this considered relevant?
As we have seen, this problem only occurs, if the interest rate is relatively high. At a weekly payout of 1%, the threshold will definitely not be reached within the first 11 weeks. So why this calculation?
It’s simple: Thinking about additional funds to invest, in addition, to reinvesting the interest, then I should consider carefully, whether I should pay into my existing reliquary or open a new one instead. For example, if I double the amount, it’s not before 22 weeks of age that dilution doesn’t throw me back to a lower tier.
Conclusion:
Reinvesting the earned amounts into the same Relic will have no effect on weekly levelling as long as the APR is below 50%.
However, if I want to invest larger sums of tokens, I have to carefully consider whether it is better to start over with a new relic. Due to the shape of the maturity curve with a sharp increase in the first two weeks and only a flat increase until full maturity, opening a new one can be the better alternative.
Extended Conclusion:
Due to my initially erroneous calculation of variant 2, the recommendation now is to either use three reliquaries, with the earnings deposited alternately into #2 and #3, or to deposit only every second distribution into the first reliquary. It remains with the conclusion that all this becomes relevant only with annual yields over 50%.
Table 1: Reinvest in the same reliquary
Table 2: Invest emissions in a second reliquary (corrected version)
Full-featured online table
Try it out on your own on this online version of the calculation table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tXzye18ehPGTNvT1SQ2eCtiqYHM5KNt-FZu1JN3aMJ8/
