[AIP - 2] Governance Vault on Fantom (old)

Following the discussion re. launching a governance vault on Fantom. I would like to move the discussion forward to the next step in our governance process.

Based on the discussion and feedback, I would like to propose our AIP - 2 below. After one more round of discussion and feedback, this will be put to a vote by the community.

The original discussion thread can be found here: [For Discussion] Proposal for Deploying Governance Vault on Fantom

Voting Options:
Four voting options will be presented. (They are re-ordered from the original thread in the order of indicative preference from the community)


  • Create a Governance Vault on Fantom
  • Revenue generated on each chain are combined and distributed based on xALPACA amount on each chain so that the APR% achived in both governance vault are equal
  • A fixed portion of GR rewards on Fantom get distributed back to Governance Vault stakers on BNB Chain (no selling of rewards token; must claim on Fantom)


  • Create a Governance Vault on Fantom
  • A fixed portion of the revenue generated + GR rewards on Fantom get distributed back to Governance Vault stakers on BNB Chain while the rest are distributed to stakers on Fantom.


  • Create a Governance Vault on Fantom
  • All revenue + GR rewards on Fantom get distributed to Governance Vault stakers on Fantom, similar to how we do it on BNB Chain


  • No Governance Vault on Fantom
  • All revenue from Fantom gets bridged and then distributed to Governance Vault stakers on BNB Chain

I vote again for option #1


Option 1 makes the most sense to me.


One think that I hate is to chase bigger APYs for the same token on different chains, and I have to do that already with Beefy, since Beefy treat each chain’s revenue as a separate business, so we do have to stake our BIFI on one particular chain in order to farm that particular yield. On the other hand, we must make ALPACA desirable to each chain’s public base.

Considering both points, there’s one obstacle for the option where we would have to chase the yield, it’s that most of us have our ALPACA locked for long @BNB.

I can see no better option than having the revenue been split proportional for each xALPACA doesn’t matter where it is staked.

Thx for the great job guys, in ALPACA we trust, a LOT!


Totally agree, option 1 is the best option.
Voting! For ALPACA!


Now this is one awesome proposal. Option 1 is better for all!


As part of the process, if you are in agreement that this AIP should be put up for voting, please hit the heart button in the original post of this thread.

We will need 5% upvote (Quorum) from the total forum users for the proposal to go to a vote.


I vote for option #1 .


Option #1 looks like it will address the most needs for the Alpaca cross chain platform.


I think we need more specific language on option#1. The protocol rewards and Alpaca emissions should be the same per xAlpaca between chains, not the overall governance APR.

In other words, BSC shouldn’t get fewer alpaca per xAlpaca if there’s more grazing range APR.

1 Like

That was my original idea, however I see only protocol revenue and not emissions in option #1.
About the Grazing range not being part of the crosschain apr should be self explicatory from the description.
Bsc grazing stays 100% on bsc governance stakers, fantom grazing goes 80% on fantom stakers and 20% on bsc stakers. Bsc stakers need to withdraw their rewards in fantom using the same wallet address they use to stake on bsc vault.

@Crypt0non can emissions be distributed on fantom governance too, always taking in consideration the overall xAlpaca balance?


i prefer to vote option 3.
this helps alpaca to attract more users

but i can accept option 1. it is fair

1 Like

What is the fixed portion? 20%? If it is, I will choose #4

of course option 1
This will allow the earliest users to continue to receive high income from the platform regardless of the network

And it will also help us attract new users, but already on the ftm network

1 Like
  • Emission to the governance vault and buyback from farming performance fees will be included in the calculation and the APR% will be the same for both chains.

  • Grazing Range APR% is excluded from the calculation.


option 1 is fair and great


Is it possible to somehow replicate the xAlpaca on BSC to Fantom and vice versa? So when someone stakes on either chain, they will get it on both? Users will only be able to claim their Alpaca on one of the chains, and this way they can be proportional eligible for all chains’ GRs.

Otherwise, I am tossing up between option 1, 2 and 4. It really depends on what the “fixed portion” will be for option 1 and 2. Personally, leaning towards 1 or 4 since I believe an equal APR on both chains is important, or just only having one vault.

Receiving yield in one place has my vote.
Going with #4

Option #1 is the option that allows you to get the same $Alpaca APR independently on the chain you lock your alpaca into.
Option #2 will cause the APR on both chains to fluctuate, what would happen if you locked in the chain with less apr?
Option #4 would greatly reduce our ability to attract fantom investors that believe in the project.

The GR part should be treated differently because it’s one the tools that help our partners to gain visibility, however our partners would be more interested in attracting investors on the chain they already operate into.