Adding features to the BNT token

Adding additional features to the BNT token can incentives organic growth, which in turn, will decrease the deficit. At the current time, there is not enough value accrual for investors to purchase the BNT token therefor we need to add additional features that will increase buy pressure as well as help bancor attract new users & market attention. This alone will not fix our current problems, but it will help and can be part of the multi pronged approach towards the solution.


1- bnt stakers will receive the 0.25% withdraw fee ( if it ever gets re-endabled ) the bnt stakers will receive the TKN’s, not additional BNT. I am not suggesting BNT to be inflated

2- bnt stakers will receive trading fees paid out in TKNs / whatever fee was charged from the tkn trade ?

3 - ILP restored and acrued to LP’s at 0.25%/day. LP can exit anytime.
If no protection needed, do not charge exit fee (To encourage more deposit)
If protection needed, charge x % to exit. The withdraw fee % will be determined by the pools deficit. This fee will be shared with BNT LP’s ONLY. will not be shared with bnt held in wallets.

4 -

  • ILP insurance is restored, but is acrued at —%/day + requires a the LP to stake X ___ BNT tokens ( depending on the size of the position ? )
  • in addition to this staking the BNT tokens will also entitle the BNT LP to a % of the withdraw fees or a % of the fees generated from trades ( withdraw fees could come from IL from user not having full coverage… or a fee taken from a users position for exiting )
  • If the users initiates ILP , their staked BNT is locked for X__ period of time and no longer accrues any of the withdraw fees or trading fees during this period of time.
  • Only BNT that is staked, while there has been no claim for ILP will be issued withdraw fees or fees generated. ( this creates buy pressure for bnt, and helps to lock up bnt )

5 - lets hear your ideas. post them below


I’m definitely with you on the concept. I’d love to have more utility behind BNT. I’ll keep this in the back of my mind & see if I can come up with any good use cases.


Interesting - You’re saying create an exit fee and that fee gets paid to BNT stakers?

Am I understanding correctly?

1 Like

earlier at the start of V3.0 bancor introduced a withdraw fee of 0.25%. I was suggesting if this ever gets re-implemented, that this fee go to bnt holders instead


Remove instant IL protection. Change it back to the previous version but instead of 1% per day, change it to 0.25% per day. This will take roughly 1 year to reach 100%.

LP can exit anytime.
If no protection needed, do not charge exit fee (To encourage more deposit)
If protection needed, charge 2.5% to exit. The fee can accrue in treasury or share with BNT holders but 0.25% is surely too little imo.

1 Like

good ideas here, would like to hear some discussion around this idea and hopefully we come up with others !

Why not post this idea as its own proposal?

If the community is interested, it can be implemented.

this idea still needs to be tweaked … a 2.5% withdraw fee is a little too high. thatll give bancor a bad rep. people would take a look at the apy and calculate how long theyd need to stake simply to hit the withdraw fee

but the idea is on the right path though! and id like to hear if others have anything else to suggest. nail down some good ideas here. hammer them out then lets draft up the proposal


In the Feedback Request: Potential Direction for Recovery - I included a 0.25% fee that would be protocol owned ETH.

But I’m open to your suggestion as well.

Yes the withdraw fee is a parameter that can be adjusted. Maybe even determined by the pool deficit.

1 Like

my friend you are full of good ideas

1 Like

i like the of a revised ILP program, and i think that 0.25% coverage per day is an excellent start.

Think it is good too. Just dont let ut start with the day its getting implemented but rather with the day people are already in the protocoll

We may be able to use a ve tokenomics to simulate the accrual of IL protection. However, there still needs to be a mechanism that checks the protocol can actual afford the IL protection. My opinion is that having ILP will be something that takes forever if at all to bring back, instead the protocol should manage it’s pools wisely to mitigate IL in the first place. In addition, additional revenue streams that keep it positive.


IL is part and parcel of AMM. Bancor will not be able to mitigate IL, same as every other protocols.

Sure, we can cap ILP at certain percentage of the treasury, say 10%. Ve style can also be used to support ILP in certain ways.

My point is ILP can still be provided but with more conditions.

“Bancor will not be able to mitigate IL, same as every other protocols.”, this statement makes it even more paramount to not even have the feature available. Why insure something that can’t be mitigated [Insurance companies work because what they are covering is low probabilities]. Although, yes I agree we could just make it a cost of business as inflation of the BNT token, but maybe a better framework is to have users of the protocol understand that IL is a normal thing, however the protocol will do its best to generate revenue that can in some circumstances make more than the IL incurred on a pool.

1 Like

Insurance do not cover due to low probability. But they adjust their premium according to their risk.
Similarly Bancor could charge higher for ILP and depending on the risk that it is taking. Example is higher exit fee for those who need ILP and the lp fee can also be shifted more towards treasury instead of lp.
I do not agree to inflat Bnt. We should use treasury to do so. A combination of 0.25% ILP per day, financing options from partner, high exit fee for lp who needs ILP, better lp fee allocation, more revenue stream, cap. We can still somehow provide certain level of protection.

1 Like

I suggest protection is limited to fees. Minting BNT is too likely to increase the deficit

You must be mistaken. No one is suggesting minting of more bnt. Ve tokenomics is locking of existing bnt and they can act as supplement to treasury for ILP. Dao can vote to direct some fee to locked bnt as reward for the risk.

Sorry, should have been more clear in what I was responding to.

If the ILP is based on time in the protocol, and not on fees, it may lead to minting.