BED INDEX Proposal

Hey, my name is Marc. I am from Index. Excited to be here! Thank you for the thoughtful feedback from all viewpoints.

As you may know Index is behind the DPI component of BED and helps facilitate the Bankless Vision on BED.

Some great points have already been made on the diversification benefits of BED and the marketing potential of the partnership with Bankless. Also, this would further the relationship with the Index Cooperative.

Index and Uniswap already have a great relationship as UNI is the largest holding in DPI and Uniswap V3 is our primary liquidity provider for our strategies. In TVL of Uniswap pools, ETH2x-FLI is 16th and DPI is 37th. Also, most of the rebalancing function of BED and our other tokens like DPI or MVI use Uniswap.

Index is one of the largest and most active communities in the ecosystem. We are excited at the potential prospect of strengthening our ties through BED as well as leveraging our expertise in other treasury areas.

I’ll try to address a couple of your excellent points as best I can. It looks like the main three are: Correlation, implementation (selling/buying), and benefit to the community.


A point was made “Diversification…(is) a gargantuan task.”

It’s something that as we speak to more and more treasuries, we are learning just how big a task it is. These conversations will be the foundations of building stronger protocols and a healthy environment for all.

Obviously – UNI is highly Correlated to ETH, WBTC and DPI. But that’s a good thing.

We believe, as I think you do, that Web3 is just now hitting its stride. The aim is not to diversify those returns away with true “non-correlating assets.” The goal is to provide the Uniswap treasury with broader diversification, non-native holdings that can be used as needed, and participation in other protocols.

Broader diversification comes from two areas.

  1. Exposure to WBTC – Uniswap is heavily dependent on revenue generated from the Ethereum ecosystem. Exposure to an alternative protocol could limit volatility if there was an Ethereum specific negative event.

  2. Exposure to ETH and DPI – Like many treasuries Uniswap is largely composed of native tokens. Replacing a small portion of UNI with ETH and DPI could be a benefit in the event of a Uniswap specific downturn. However, if that unlikely event never occurs, the correlation to UNI pays off because you continue to have a growth asset that performs like UNI.
    It was mentioned in one of your responses about purchasing (addressed later) that if the treasury had to:

“SELL 1M worth of UNI tokens. This means that the token itself will lose value - the entire treasury will lose value as a direct result of the action. Despite the treasury being large, the liquidity is not equal. 1-5M purchases can have more price impact than you think.”

This highlights a need for all treasuries. What would be sold if funds were needed quickly? If Uniswap had an issue and needed to sell treasury funds, its likely UNI is already down. A further large sale from the treasury could potentially have a large and likely negative impact.

Think of BED as your UNI proxy token that can be the first thing sold when needed. Its underlying components have deep liquidity that can be accessed with ease.

Lastly, it was brought up if Uniswap would be better off “Run its own VC team using the funds from the treasury and participate in seed rounds of other upcoming protocols”
The DPI component allows you to participate in 17 protocols. Some “established” (in crypto time) and some more up and coming, curated by the DeFi authority Defi Pulse.


The concern about price impact to UNI to sell and buy BED is a common one – even if the benefits make sense, how do you limit token price impact? This is also a benefit of partnering with Index. We have accomplished several large buys and have the experience and connections to assist in this process. If we get this process further down the line. We will make sure to have an implementation process that will cause minimal impact.

In the past we have used Bonding Curves, used our market-making partners, direct swaps, paired with outside investors, or have done smaller systematic buys.

What’s most important is to determine if diversification is a good idea, and if so how much would be meaningful to your community to diversify the treasury.

From there, we will work together to find the best way to implement. We would only go ahead once we have a solution to your wanted amount that would have minimal impact on price.

Let me know if I can answer any questions, here to help!! Looking forward to a growing partnership.


Its not a good thing that they are all highly correlated. It beats the purpose of diversification. If you diversify into highly correlated assets, your diversification impact is low at best; however, you DID sell your own token it weakening it further. That´s why diversifying into non-correlated assets should be the primary task…Otherwise, its borderline pointless and harmful. We can see it live in this year´s fall of the “balanced portfolio” which went from a negative correlation to a highly positive correlation. The result was that the returns went negative.

Diversification into the majors and the DPI is almost bound to underperform due to the costs of selling your own token, having high correlation, and incurring costs.

Anybody with basic statistics knowledge knows that this is not a good idea.

You said yourself the web3 was just hitting its stride. Why should not the UNI Treasury form a VC team to achieve diversification? Its true, its not correlated, and the returns are highly above what the majors could ever give. The failure rate is higher, but it makes more sense for the alllocation of 1-5M USD.

Its nice that the DPI has some, but of course, this is not enough on its own and could never compete against full blown allocated seed rounds. The opportunity costs of buying majors are just too high mainly this late in the cycle.

The DeFi Fund deal was OTC btw with minimal price impact yet it moved the token down. It´s psychology…people will sell it if they know somebody else is going to sell it before them. Now, there is no way to prevent it from happening if such a highly inefficient proposal ever saw the light of day. Its human behavior.

Overall, this proposal´s spirit is nice, but it works only in a dreamworld. In reality, its bound to do more harm than good. Like I have said, diversification is a major major task. You need to have an edge to achieve the desired results. There is a reason why many funds in both TradFi and Crypto world fail at it. This is just an unnecessary middleman trying to get you to sell your own token and buy into majors for no reason at all. All the shill posts do not help either. It´s almost as if you guys came here solely to troll and ask for money.

I am an open minded person though. Show me the data proving me wrong stating that majors and DPI would meaningfully outperform the alternatives (a Uniswap VC team) and I will change my mind. Until then:

I will vote NO on this proposal.

1 Like

This project really convinced me, I hope you do too

1 Like

I will vote NO as well.

1 Like

Hi, I’m quite late on this one, but will add my thoughts anyway:

While I think diversifying the treasury is essential, I have 2 issues with this proposal:

  1. I believe a diversification should include a significant proportion of some stablecoin.

  2. I don’t understand the point of the BED Index: Why would you want an index that constantly rebalances the weights of multiple assets (e.g. ETH and BTC)? This is the same as having a liquidity position in the Uniswap v2 ETH-BTC pool, but instead of earning trading fees you need to pay them (each time you rebalance). So you get the downside (“impermanent loss”) without the upside (fees).

1 Like

Good point on #2 . The community should call this out.

yes we become motivated by this