TIP-082: TTG Betastaker reimbursement and tBTC Redemption Fees Mint and Transfer

Vote Type

Token holder DAO snapshot with a 7-day vote period

DAO-elected Sponsors
@Eastban , @JohnPackel , @wuji


  1. Reimburse the Threshold Treasury Guild for T tokens delegated to Beta Stakers.
  2. Mint ~9.58 tBTC from Bridge Redemption Fees and transfer to the Treasury Guild.


Beta Stakers program

tBTC currently relies on a permissioned group of node operators, referred to as “Beta Stakers”, to secure the wallets that contain the BTC that backs tBTC. These nodes are highly reliable, and stake a significant amount of T.

As part of TIP 67 three professional node operators were vetted, selected and added to the Beta Staker group. The TTG delegated 90m T to these professional stakers, 30m T each, on behalf of the DAO:

  1. Sub7
  2. Delight
  3. Ponkila


TTG had the funds from previous Budget requests and earmarked T for other unused purposes.

TTG T token balance

All T transactions on the TTG multisig :

Actual T and other assets balance can be checked online: TTG Debank link

What did the Treasury Guild do with the T?

So what did the TTG do with the different T they were allocated with from the DAO?

June 2023:

  • 50m T received for Coverage Pools. 17m T were deployed and then later in May 2024 retrieved again as per TIP.

August 2023:

  • 50m T received to diversify into tBTC via Bonds (TIP47). 48.3m T used to date.

September 2023:

  • 152m T for 2H23 Budget: TTG is using these T to pay for ongoing expenses.
  • 15m for Aera Vault: deployed in September 2023.
  • 13m for Minting Refunds (TIP54). These are not used, since TIP was voted to implement an ongoing minting fee holiday.

October 2023:

  • 20m T for Mango options proposal to promote tBTC on Solana chain. Deployed in November 2023. As these options were executed the TTG added 471k USDC to the DAO’s Protocol Owned Liquidity.

November 2023:

  • TTG received 30m T From Council, for the seed of the T/tBTC Balancer pool (with 4.89 tBTC from GB). Effectively used 27.55m T for that purpose.
  • 75m T from Governor Bravo for the Flowdesk MM deal, which were deployed in December 2023.

March 2024:

  • Retrieved T/DAI Arrakis vault. The DAI was converted to thUSD and added as protocol owned liquidity (POL).

May 2024:

  • 3m T retrieved from Myso Protocol (previously deployed in March 2024).
  • 17m T from covT - Coverage Pools redrawal

127m T were used to pay for expenses throughout the August 2023 - May 2024 period.

60m T were delegated to Sub7 and Delight professional Betastakers in February 2024.

30m T were delegated to Ponkila professional Betastaker in May 2024.

tBTC Bridge Redemption Fees

Threshold DAO is accruing tBTC redemption fees as a bank balance in favor of its GB address (0x87f005317692d05baa4193ab0c961c69e175f45f) as can be seen on the Bank Contract (balanceOf).

In order to use these assets as POL these fees should get minted as tBTC and transferred to TTG multisig wallet.


This proposal aims to include the transactions necessary to

  1. return to the TTG wallet the tokens used to delegate to the betastakers program and
  2. mint the tBTC obtained as redemption fees and transfer them to the TTG to use as POL.

Transactions to be included in this Governor Bravo governance process:

  1. Transfer to the Treasury Guild 24.55m T from the DAO’s Governor Bravo address, based on the following calculation:

+ 90m T (delegated to Beta Stakers)
- 50m T (unused for Coverage Pools)
- 13m T (unused due to Minting Fee Holiday)
- 2.45m T (unused for T/tBTC pool seed)
= 24.55m T (total for reimbursement)

  1. Execute the Mint: TBTCVault.mint from the GB address (this function: https://etherscan.io/address/0x9C070027cdC9dc8F82416B2e5314E11DFb4FE3CD#writeContract#F11). Once done, that will mint TBTC ERC20 to the GB address.

  2. Execute the Transfer: TBTC.transfer (this function: https://etherscan.io/address/0x18084fbA666a33d37592fA2633fD49a74DD93a88#writeContract#F10).


I’m a bit confused about the 90m T to the 3 beta stakers. TTG is asking to be reimbursed for that, which is fine. Was there an original proposal that approved the 90m T delegation to the 3 beta stakers? Which one of the following most fits this situation:

  1. 90m T delegation approved through governance, the TTG “loaned” this 90m T to beta staker delegation
  2. We needed 90m T to delegate to beta stakers, TTG happened to have it, so they delegated. Now, TTG is asking for that 90m T back, but there was no original approval of 90m T for beta staker delegation.

Thank you


Hey shoegazer, i think 1) would fit.
There was TIP67 approved by the DAO to enable Betastaker expansion :

I don’t exactly know how it happened but neither part of TIP-067 was ratified by Snapshot afaik.

I guess the approval was implicit. We could enact that approval in this same snapshot retroactively.

Thanks for raising this @shoegazer69, I didn’t realise there wasn’t a vote here in the end.

As I recall now, it was originally planned to vote for candidates to be added to the program via Snapshot, which was to be DAO ratification for the program. It was then decided for the sake of expediency that the candidate approvals to be made by the TTG.

Appreciate your accounting work above @Eastban, makes perfect sense to me. Let this TIP-082 Snapshot vote act as retroactive confirmation of TIP-067 delegation.


Proposal is up on Snapshot.


This proposal has been approved by the DAO at the Snapshot temp check phase, with the following results:


  • Yes: 487M T - 100%
  • No: 0 T - 0%
  • Abstain: 0 T - 0%

This proposal is now prepared to be queued into Governor for DAO approval and execution.


Jul16/2024 - Governor Bravo Setup :

Transactions included in this Governor Bravo governance process:

     1) Bank increase allowance
	   - target: 0x65Fbae61ad2C8836fFbFB502A0dA41b0789D9Fc6  (Bank)
	   - method: increaseBalanceAllowance(address spender, uint256 addedValue)
	   - parameters:
	      - spender: 0x9C070027cdC9dc8F82416B2e5314E11DFb4FE3CD  (TBTCVault)
	      - addedValue: 1090291825   ( in satoshis )
	   - value (eth) = 0
	2) TBTCVault mint:
	   - target contract: 0x9C070027cdC9dc8F82416B2e5314E11DFb4FE3CD  (TBTCVault)
	   - method: mint
	   - parameters:
	      - amount: 10902918250000000000   ( in erc20 wei )
	   - value (ETH): 0
	3) TBTC transfer from GB to TG:
	   - target contract: 0x18084fbA666a33d37592fA2633fD49a74DD93a88  (TBTC token)
	   - method: transfer
	   - parameters:
	      - recipient: 0x71E47a4429d35827e0312AA13162197C23287546  (TG)
	      - amount: 11107914120090000000 (in wei)
	   - value (ETH): 0
	4) Transfer T from GB to TG:
	   - target contract: 0xCdF7028ceAB81fA0C6971208e83fa7872994beE5  (T token)
	   - method: transfer
	   - parameters:
	      - recipient: 0x71E47a4429d35827e0312AA13162197C23287546  (TG address)
	      - amount: 24550000000000000000000000  (24.55m in wei)
	   - value (ETH): 0