DIGG Rebase Calculator
Calculate how your DIGG holdings would adjust with Bitcoin price movements using the rebasing mechanism. The formula is: New Supply = Old Supply × (Current Price / Target Price)^k (Where k = 1.0 for DIGG)
How This Works
DIGG adjusts its supply daily based on Bitcoin's price movements. If Bitcoin increases by 10%, your DIGG balance increases by 10% (and vice versa). This happens automatically through the rebasing mechanism - your percentage of the total supply stays the same, but the number of tokens changes.
DIGG is not a typical cryptocurrency. It doesn’t aim to be a store of value like Bitcoin or a utility token like Ethereum. Instead, DIGG was built to behave like Bitcoin - but on the Ethereum blockchain. Launched on October 29, 2020, by Badger DAO, DIGG was designed to mirror Bitcoin’s price movements through a daily automatic adjustment of its supply. If Bitcoin goes up, your DIGG balance increases. If Bitcoin drops, your DIGG balance shrinks. You don’t buy more or sell less - the protocol does it for you. This is called a rebase.
How DIGG works: The rebasing mechanism
DIGG’s core idea is simple: 1 DIGG should always equal 1 Bitcoin in value. That’s the target. But Bitcoin’s price changes constantly. So every 24 hours, at 00:00 UTC, the DIGG protocol checks the current price of Bitcoin and adjusts how many DIGG tokens exist.
The formula is: New Supply = Old Supply × (Current Price / Target Price)^k. The ‘k’ factor, originally set to 1.0, determines how aggressively the supply changes. If Bitcoin rises 10%, your DIGG balance increases by about 10%. If Bitcoin falls 15%, your balance drops by 15%. Your percentage of the total DIGG supply stays the same - but the number of tokens in your wallet changes.
This is different from stablecoins like USDT or USDC, which peg to the US dollar. DIGG pegs to Bitcoin. And unlike wrapped Bitcoin (like WBTC), which just locks BTC in a vault and issues a 1:1 token, DIGG has no underlying Bitcoin backing it. It’s pure algorithm. No collateral. No custodian. Just code.
Why DIGG was created
Badger DAO wanted to give DeFi users exposure to Bitcoin without needing to hold actual BTC. Back in 2020, Bitcoin was mostly locked on its own chain. You couldn’t use it in Uniswap, Aave, or Compound. DIGG let people trade Bitcoin-like exposure directly in Ethereum DeFi. It was a clever workaround: get Bitcoin’s price action without needing to move BTC off its chain.
Early adopters were excited. When DIGG launched, it briefly traded at $1,400 - matching Bitcoin’s price at the time. For a few weeks, it worked perfectly. People were earning yield on DIGG in Badger’s Sett vaults. The concept felt revolutionary.
The problems: Why DIGG failed to hold its peg
But DIGG’s design had a fatal flaw: it assumed Bitcoin’s price would move slowly. It didn’t account for crypto’s wild swings.
In May 2021, Bitcoin dropped over 30% in a single day. DIGG’s algorithm couldn’t keep up. The supply kept adjusting, but the price kept falling. Traders started front-running rebases - selling right before the adjustment, knowing their balance would shrink. The result? DIGG lost its peg. It never fully recovered.
By November 2023, DIGG was trading at around $374, while Bitcoin was at $34,000. That means 1 DIGG was worth just 0.00014 BTC - far from the intended 1:1 ratio. The market cap collapsed from over $100 million at its peak to under $100,000. The number of holders dropped from over 3,000 in early 2021 to fewer than 1,400 by late 2023.
Experts like Ryan Sean Adams of Bankless admitted the model broke under pressure. CoinDesk called the peg mechanism “fundamentally flawed.” Messari’s 2022 report warned that without collateral or buyback tools, rebasing tokens are vulnerable to death spirals. DIGG became the textbook example.
DIGG vs. other tokens
DIGG sits in a very small category: Bitcoin-pegged rebasing tokens. There’s nothing else like it.
Compare it to AMPL, another rebasing token. AMPL tries to peg to $1 USD. It has a much larger supply (over 330,000 tokens) and a $1.2 billion market cap. Its sensitivity parameter (k=0.25) is lower, meaning it adjusts more gently. That’s why AMPL has held its peg better over time - even if imperfectly.
Then there’s WBTC and BTCB. These are wrapped Bitcoin. Each token is backed 1:1 by real Bitcoin held in custody. They don’t rebase. Their value tracks Bitcoin exactly. But you need to trust a custodian. DIGG doesn’t require that - but it also doesn’t guarantee value.
DIGG’s niche is theoretical elegance. In practice, it’s been outperformed by simpler solutions.
Can you still use DIGG today?
Technically, yes. You can still buy DIGG on Uniswap V2 or SushiSwap using ETH. But it’s not easy - or safe.
First, liquidity is extremely low. A $1,000 trade can have over 8% slippage. You’ll pay more than you expect. Second, gas fees on Ethereum are still high. You need at least 0.005 ETH ($15) just to make a trade. Third, tax reporting is a nightmare. Every rebase counts as a taxable event. Your cost basis changes daily. Koinly’s 2022 tax report labeled rebasing tokens as the hardest to track.
Badger DAO has moved on. Their focus is now on the BADGER token and other DeFi products. DIGG hasn’t seen meaningful updates since a September 2023 gas optimization upgrade - which did nothing to revive interest.
Is DIGG worth holding?
For most people, no.
If you want Bitcoin exposure in DeFi, use WBTC. It’s safer, more liquid, and doesn’t mess with your balance. If you’re into algorithmic tokens, AMPL is far more established. DIGG is a relic - a fascinating experiment that didn’t survive real-world volatility.
There are no institutional investors using DIGG. No major exchanges list it. No DeFi protocols integrate it. The only people still trading it are speculators hoping for a miracle revival - or those who bought early and are holding onto hope.
The community on Reddit and Discord is split. Some say it still works in theory. Others point out that Bitcoin rarely moves less than 10% in a day - and DIGG needs calm to function. One user summed it up: “My DIGG balance didn’t change percentage-wise, but my USD value vanished.”
What’s next for DIGG?
Badger DAO’s roadmap mentions possible integration with Bitcoin Layer 2s like Stacks. That could give DIGG a new life - if it ever gets built. But as of November 2025, there’s no active development. No team announcements. No roadmap updates. The token is effectively dormant.
Analysts at Messari and Morgan Creek Digital agree: DIGG’s model is broken. Without collateral, without redemption, without a buyback mechanism, it can’t survive prolonged bear markets or high volatility. It’s a beautiful idea that crashed under its own weight.
DIGG remains a cautionary tale in DeFi. It shows that even clever code can’t override basic economics. Price pegs without backing are fragile. Algorithms can’t replace real assets. And in crypto, elegance doesn’t always win - stability does.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is DIGG a stablecoin?
No, DIGG is not a stablecoin. Stablecoins like USDT or USDC peg to fiat currencies (usually the US dollar). DIGG pegs to Bitcoin’s price. It’s an algorithmic rebasing token, not a stablecoin. Its value changes daily based on Bitcoin’s movements, and its supply adjusts automatically.
Can I earn interest on DIGG?
Yes, but it’s risky. Badger DAO used to offer DIGG vaults where users could deposit DIGG and earn yield in BADGER tokens. However, these vaults have been largely inactive since 2022. The yields are no longer competitive, and the underlying asset (DIGG) has lost most of its value. Depositing DIGG now offers little to no return and carries high risk.
How often does DIGG rebase?
DIGG rebases once every 24 hours, at 00:00 UTC. During each rebase, the total supply of DIGG is adjusted up or down based on the current price of Bitcoin compared to its target. Your wallet balance changes automatically - you don’t need to do anything.
Why did DIGG’s price crash?
DIGG’s price crashed because its algorithm couldn’t handle Bitcoin’s volatility. When Bitcoin dropped sharply in May 2021, DIGG’s supply kept adjusting, but the market lost confidence. Traders exploited the rebasing mechanism, causing a death spiral. Without collateral or a buyback system, there was no safety net. The peg broke, and it never recovered.
Is DIGG a good investment?
No, DIGG is not a good investment for most people. It has lost over 90% of its value since its peak, has extremely low liquidity, and is no longer supported by its original team. The protocol is effectively inactive. If you want Bitcoin exposure in DeFi, use WBTC or BTCB instead. DIGG is now a historical artifact, not a viable asset.
Bruce Bynum
November 2, 2025 AT 15:55DIGG was a cool idea but it couldn’t handle real market chaos. Bitcoin swings too hard for math to keep up.
Mehak Sharma
November 3, 2025 AT 16:08Think of DIGG as a poem written in code - elegant, haunting, and doomed to evaporate in the wind of volatility. It didn’t fail because it was dumb, but because it trusted human markets to behave like Newtonian physics. They never do.
The rebasing mechanism was a symphony played in a hurricane. Every adjustment felt like a whisper drowned by thunder. No collateral? No safety net? Just pure faith in an algorithm that forgot one thing: fear doesn’t sleep.
People called it revolutionary. I called it romantic. And romance doesn’t pay gas fees.
AMPL at least tries to be gentle. DIGG charged headfirst into the storm like a knight with a paper shield. The market didn’t crush it - it just laughed and moved on.
Now we have WBTC. Simple. Solid. Safe. No rebases. No math magic. Just Bitcoin locked in a vault and someone else taking the blame if it breaks.
Still… I miss DIGG. Not because it worked, but because it dared to dream differently.
bob marley
November 3, 2025 AT 16:52Of course it failed. You think a math equation can outsmart a bunch of degens with a $5000 ETH balance and zero sense of self-control? Please. This wasn’t finance, it was a TikTok trend with a whitepaper.
Wesley Grimm
November 4, 2025 AT 00:02Market cap down 99.9%. Liquidity thinner than a crypto influencer’s excuse. Tax reporting nightmare. No team activity since 2023. This isn’t a token - it’s a graveyard with a ticker symbol.
Masechaba Setona
November 4, 2025 AT 15:23They said it was decentralized. But who really controlled the k-factor? Probably the same people who dumped before the May 2021 crash. This was a rug pull dressed as a revolution. 🤡
Edgerton Trowbridge
November 5, 2025 AT 17:44The conceptual elegance of DIGG cannot be understated. By decoupling Bitcoin’s price discovery from its native chain, Badger DAO created a novel pathway for composability within Ethereum’s DeFi ecosystem. However, the absence of a collateralization mechanism or dynamic stabilization protocol rendered the system vulnerable to feedback loops induced by speculative trading behavior. The rebase algorithm, while mathematically sound in isolation, failed to account for the non-linear, high-variance nature of cryptocurrency price action. Consequently, the token’s peg disintegrated under conditions of extreme volatility, exposing a fundamental flaw in the assumption that algorithmic equilibrium can persist without external anchoring mechanisms.
Comparative analysis with AMPL reveals that lower sensitivity coefficients (k=0.25) and larger market caps contribute to greater resilience. DIGG’s k=1.0, while theoretically ideal for perfect tracking, was economically unsustainable. Furthermore, the lack of institutional adoption, liquidity provision, or protocol-level buyback infrastructure ensured its eventual obsolescence.
While DIGG remains a valuable case study in algorithmic design, its practical utility is now negligible. For users seeking Bitcoin exposure in DeFi, WBTC and BTCB remain superior alternatives due to their trust-minimized collateralization and market liquidity. DIGG’s legacy is not in its functionality, but in its illustration of the limits of pure algorithmic governance in decentralized finance.
Jeremy Jaramillo
November 7, 2025 AT 05:45I get why people were excited. The idea of having Bitcoin’s price action without needing to hold BTC? That’s powerful. But you can’t build a house on air. No backing, no safety net, no way to recover when things go south. It’s like trusting a weather forecast to keep your house from flooding.
People forget - DeFi isn’t just about clever code. It’s about trust. And DIGG didn’t give anyone anything real to trust.
Kymberley Sant
November 7, 2025 AT 06:21so digg was like… a bitcoin mirror but on eth? cool. but why did it just… die? like literally no one cares anymore? even the devs moved on. so sad.
mark Hayes
November 7, 2025 AT 19:53Remember when people thought rebasing tokens were the future? 😅 Now we just laugh and use WBTC. DIGG was like a Tesla Cybertruck - looks cool on paper, but you wouldn’t want to drive it in a storm.
Derek Hardman
November 8, 2025 AT 14:17It’s tragic, really. DIGG represented a moment of pure idealism in DeFi - a belief that code could transcend the flaws of traditional finance. But idealism without infrastructure is just poetry. And poetry doesn’t pay for gas.
naveen kumar
November 9, 2025 AT 00:31They say it failed because of volatility. But what if the real failure was trusting a decentralized system to follow a centralized price feed? Who controls the Bitcoin oracle? Who’s to say it wasn’t manipulated from the start? This wasn’t a bug - it was a feature for insiders.
Brett Benton
November 10, 2025 AT 13:46Big respect to Badger DAO for even trying. DIGG was wild. I bought in at $1400, lost it all, and still think it was worth the ride. Crypto’s about experiments - even the ones that crash.
David Roberts
November 11, 2025 AT 20:40The k-factor was poorly calibrated. A sensitivity of 1.0 under high volatility is not just suboptimal - it’s catastrophic. The rebasing mechanism should have employed a dynamic k-factor based on volatility indices like the BVIX. Instead, they went full textbook. Classic DeFi naivety.
Monty Tran
November 12, 2025 AT 17:05DIGG was never meant to last. It was a proof of concept for a world that doesn’t exist. The fact that it lasted two years is more impressive than any stablecoin.
Jason Coe
November 12, 2025 AT 21:55I still have a tiny bit of DIGG in my wallet. Not because I think it’ll bounce back, but because I’m weirdly attached. It’s like keeping a broken watch your grandpa gave you - doesn’t tell time anymore, but you still wear it. Every rebase feels like a ghost knocking. I don’t even check the price anymore. I just… wait.
People say it’s dead. Maybe. But in the quiet corners of DeFi, someone’s still watching the chart at 00:00 UTC, hoping this time, the algorithm gets it right.
It’s not an investment. It’s a memorial.
I’ve got 0.0003 DIGG. Worth $0.11. But I’ll hold it until the blockchain ends.
Eric Redman
November 14, 2025 AT 19:28They said it was decentralized but the team still had admin keys to change k-factor. That’s not DeFi, that’s a rigged casino with a fancy website. I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed.
Eliane Karp Toledo
November 15, 2025 AT 06:54What if DIGG wasn’t a failure? What if it was a test? What if the real Bitcoin was always meant to stay on Bitcoin, and DIGG was just a decoy to see who’d chase ghosts? The whole thing was a psyop to get retail to buy into ‘Bitcoin on Ethereum’ so they could move on to the next scam.
Phyllis Nordquist
November 16, 2025 AT 04:03While DIGG’s technical architecture demonstrated ingenuity in its attempt to achieve Bitcoin price pegging without custodial intermediaries, its operational viability was fundamentally compromised by the absence of a liquidity backstop, a buyback protocol, or a mechanism to mitigate front-running during rebases. The design assumed rational market participants and low-frequency price shocks - assumptions incompatible with the empirical behavior of cryptocurrency markets. Consequently, the token’s collapse was not merely a market failure but a systemic failure of incentive alignment. The absence of governance tools to dynamically adjust parameters in response to volatility further exacerbated its fragility. For future algorithmic pegs, the DIGG model must incorporate: (1) collateralized reserves, (2) volatility-adaptive rebase multipliers, and (3) anti-front-running mechanisms such as time-locked rebases or randomization protocols.