[RFC] - Vesting NFTs for upfront governance

Abstract: This proposal offers Honey Genesis Bee (HGB) holders the opportunity to lock up their NFTs to receive vote escrowed HONEY (veHONEY) upfront.

Objective: Give NFT holders a larger say in the DAO on day 1, instead of waiting to receive the entirety of their emissions. This offers them a larger amount of rewards shared across veHONEY holders such as potential revenue redistribution, yield, and bribes.

Description: HGB NFTs are currently set to receive half of the entire DeFi protocol’s liquidity mining and emissions. However because these rewards are distributed over a long period of time, they result in IDO participants having a disproportionate share in the DAO relative to NFT holders. By locking their NFTs for up to 4 years, HGB holders receive their half of all protocol emissions upfront in the form of veHONEY. This means their rewards ($HONEY) are vested until the NFT unlocks. In the meantime, their veHONEY allows them to earn a greater share of the rewards. These rewards can include revenue sharing, bribes from other protocols, boosted yield in pools, airdrops, and anything else distributed to veHONEY holders.

This places a greater emphasis on veHONEY, ensuring that all community members have a weight in the DAO relative to how long they vest their tokens.

This delays sell pressure on HONEY, allowing liquidity to build up over time in the HONEY/USDC LP. It also removes sell pressure on NFTs, as it reduces opportunities for arbitrage between their market value and their yield.

Another benefit is the increased scarcity of the NFTs available on the market. As protocol rewards go up, more bees are expected to be locked for upfront rewards. While the demand for bees increases, their circulating supply decreases.

Feel free to add whatever ideas and contributions you’d like before we submit it as an HIP.


All for this. Ideally, we’d match HONEY to veHONEY 1:1 for GHB yield up front (which I believe we are saying here).

I.e. 1 GHB staked for 4 years = 10,312.5 HONEY. Should we lock this period in (secondary action perhaps), we should then receive 10,312.5 veHONEY up front.

That could give GHB skin in the game immediately!


That’s exactly what I’m getting from this too. Totally agree with @tinybigideas here


I think this proposal does not allow you to lock your NFT for 4 years and get the 10k $Honey. It only allows you to lock your NFT and gives you untradeable vehoney.
And say you lock one GHB for 4 year all the Honey you’d get during that period is taken (~10k) and vested for 4 years and you’ll get 1:1 veHoney for it. After the 4 years you can redeem the veHoney for the locked Honey.
If you lock one GHB for 2 years it takes 7500 Honey and vests it for 2 Years at a 2:1 ratio and you would get 3750 veHoney redeemable for 7500 Honey after 2 years.

Ah. My suggestion is for both. GHB needs to be at minimum equal to buying and vesting HONEY directly. Don’t expect HONEY up front, just veHONEY, but I expect the HONEY in 4 years (given my 4 year vest example). I can then vest that HONEY for a further 4 years and get another 10,312.5 veHONEY is my suggestion. Ideally, a GHB is infinite veHONEY as long as you continue to vest its HONEY.

I would suggest there is a shorter lock for Bee vs $honey holders. (i.e. 2 years for a full 1:1 veHoney. And each bee can stake with a certain amount of $honey for booster yield.

So investors are incentived to buy bee and Honey together.


Ok, so locking the Honey Genesis Bee (HGB), also locks it’s $honey emissions for the same duration! But the emissions are a variable based on how many HGB are staked/locked in total, with a minimum emission of 10 $honey/day.

Since you give the veHoney upfront and its based on $honey emissions, you can’t predict the exact amount of $honey that will be yielded by the HGB over the desired duration of the lock!

So i propose you do the calculation based on the minimum emissions, but all the excess $honey that is yielded, because not 100% of the HGB are staked or locked, is withdrawable.

1 Like

I am all for it! We clearly need more incentive to hold not just the tokens, but also the nfts, after the IDO


Not entirely sure if we are talking past each other but I think this part “Don’t expect HONEY up front, just veHONEY, but I expect the HONEY in 4 years (given my 4 year vest example). I can then vest that HONEY for a further 4 years and get another 10,312.5 veHONEY is my suggestion.” is how its planned.

You lock in the nft for X amount of time. You get veHoney DURING X and AFTER X you get Honey which you can use however you want (sell/vest).

1 Like

I’m a fan of front loading the veHoney. A couple threads to pull:
1, as already noted, accounting for less than all HGBs being staked. I like the idea of the excess Honey not factored into the veHoney calculations being capable of withdrawal.
2, will there be linear decay on the veHoney? If so, will there be a mechanism to revest the portion attributable to the NFT that the decay applies to? Perhaps as the decay accrues corresponding amounts of Honey can be accessed and then it’s up to the NFT holder to decide to revest it or do something else with the Honey.

1 Like

Given that veHONEY is not a token, can it be vested? I imagine it could only be spent on governance. However, with [RFC] - Infinite veHONEY supply - #3 by tinybigideas I propose the same HONEY can continually emit veHONEY making its decay irrelevant should you wish to keep HONEY vested.

I’m OK with this proposal. Just make it clear that there will be the same vest periods as with the token.

Doesn’t this reduce the value of Honey? Now, if you hold/stake a bee, you no longer need honey to get VeHoney. This should reduce buy pressure on Honey in exchange for buy pressure on the NFTs. This reduces the value of having participated in the IDO and rewards the NFT holders. Or am I missing something?

Poncho’s comment has really highlighted the whole thing for me. The only reason this was introduced was to appease the crybaby bee holders that kept freaking out about a short term crash. Now you appease the bee holders and you have the other side saying the same thing stupid shit. “Ooh what a smack in the face to those that invested in the IDO”. The bees are still incredibly undervalued without this proposal as well as $Honey.

I just wish that we can stopp focusing on appeasing 8 people that have been here for like 2 weeks and think they own the place and just keep focusing on the protocol and whats actually important long term.

You always need $honey to get veHoney, when you lock the NFT, the veHoney is based on the $honey that the NFT would generate, you just get it faster! In any case this could even add buy pressure to $honey, since you will need more to get a bigger piece of the pie! (but the market should price the $honey and the NFT fairly, and they both would grow pretty evenly)

The problem is the IDO didn’t raise enough money in comparison of how much the NFTs were worth. so it made an $honey arbitrage between the token and the NFT.

Since the NFT was sold at a fixed price, and IDO wasn’t, and IDO was more of a speculative investment than the NFT, since you could not know the value of $honey until the IDO was over, a lot of NFT holders didn’t participate. So based on this, it would be right to make it up for the side that was at a fixed price and not a speculative.

Also from a marketing stand point the NFT provides more value, so there should be more priority on that!

To prove my point that the IDO was undervalued, the $honey price has gone up from the IDO, but the NFT price gone down/stayed relatively the same!

I think it is better to lock the bee for 2 yrs and get 7500 vehoney with a conversion of 1:1

Because after the 2 years the Honey emision will half therefore for year 3 and 4 only 5625 honey are emitted.

If I buy rn, $Honey on the market for 2 sol (HGB mint price) I would roughly get 16750 and if it is locked for 4yrs there is a difference of 3625 ve honey when compared to locking the HGB for 4 years.


i was worried that bees have no utility and were left behind, floor price matters in your project better the price more hype is built around so this will help a lot and start the buying pressure in bees

I agree with the sentiment that bees should have a different lock cycle than regular honey, mainly to incentivize bees to be purchased off the markets. So in terms of deals, regular honey is 3mo, 6mo, 1yr, or 4 yr, with veHoney allotments increasing with time. We should give the bees honey up front, but with lock periods of 6mo, 1 yr, and 2 yrs. 6 months would get 1:1 vehoney:honey that they will get for staking 6 months, 1 year lock will get 3500vehoney up front, and 2 year will get 7500vehoney up front. (Sorry if my numbers are slightly off, I’m writing this on my lunch break.)

1 Like

A key issue that arises is that there is less incentive to vest Bees beyond 2 years. The typical model for vesting is that at a minimum rewards increase linearly with time (e.g. if you vest for 4 years you get 4x the amount as if you only vested for 1 year). Frequently the incentives are even better than linear (e.g. if you very for 4 years you get 8x or 16x the amount as if you only vested for 1 year). With Bees, however, their Honey yield decreases after 2 years. As a vehicle for staking this makes sense to avoid inflation, but when you flip the script and propose the Bees can be locked and turned into veHoney, you would more benefits for locking them for more than 2 years.

Many of the Bee Holders minted and been here supporting since Day 1 and are from the United States. I wanted to buy a bunch in the IDO but it was clearly stated we were not allowed. The IDO would have been at least double I would guess if the American Bee holders could have purchased in IDO. We were not allowed, so you might keep that in mind because many have helped with ideas and worked hard along the way and are vital to the community and DAO.