[DAO Discussion] Deposit 2M $DAI on BNB Chain's Magpie XYZ

This proposal recommends to deposit 2 million $DAI on the Magpie XYZ yield boosting platform. Magpie XYZ is a Convex-type platform built on the BNB Chain and integrated with Wombat Exchange, a next-generation stableswap. By depositing $DAI on Magpie XYZ, we can expect to earn high returns without the risk of impermanent loss.

Depositing $DAI on Magpie XYZ will allow us to use the platform’s services to earn high returns on deposits. Currently, $DAI liquidity providers earn around 9% APR on the platform. If Wonderland deploys 2 million $DAI at 6% APR, we can expect to earn around $120,000 in 12 months. The platform’s security and convenience make it an attractive option for managing our $DAI deposits since it has been audited by Peckshield and ZOKYO. Magpie has received strategic investments from Ankr, Helio Protocol, and Wombat Exchange.

By deploying 2 million $DAI BEP-20 tokens on the BNB Chain, we can provide liquidity on Magpie XYZ and earn passive income. Magpie XYZ offers increased rewards for liquidity providers. Rewards earned on the platform are paid in WOM tokens and vlMGP. WOM is the governance token of Wombat and Binance Labs invested on Wombat. vlMGP is a locked version of the Magpie governance token that can be unlocked after 60 days. While locked, vlMGP earns revenue share and entitles holders to governance voting power in Magpie and Wombat Exchange.


Seems like a good strategy for the community proposal bot, why didn’t you use that? :heart:

I’m immediately not a fan of this. The person who submitted it doesn’t seem to be a member of our discord by the name listed and this appears to be an alt and was created 3 weeks ago.

If you use the community proposal bot you can’t hide behind the anonymity of an alt :joy:

There are two problems with this proposal.

Deposits on Magpie go to Wombat pools, which Wonderland is already investing in via Wombex. Hence this would lead to concentration of exposure to Wombat.

The claim there is no risk of impermanent loss is incorrect. Impermanent loss is presented differently and renamed “coverage ratio”, but works the same way, i.e. if the pool were to become underallocated to DAI, withdrawing DAI would be subject to a haircut, analogous to impermanent loss on exiting a liquidity pool.


I was going to suggest the same and then noticed the yield is only 9% and WIP 27 has the minimum set at 10% :skull:

1 Like

For the record, it would still be under the % allowed by the Treasury Allocation Proposal (TAP), but it is true that it would increase exposure and it should be considered as we may not be willing to do so. Good call.

1 Like

There’s alot of alt engagement in here :slight_smile:

There are a lot of unproven and not even explained accusations here :blush:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.