I am talking about pools that bring revenue to the network, not the rounding error pools.
Mainly stablecoins, link, wbtc, and especially the vBNT pool is particularly hard to enter.
While I appreciate your participation - this poll will have no sway to my opinion.
You are welcome to create your own thread and then snapshot proposal if you wish to engage the DAO’s decision making process.
Don’t let it bother you. It’s an inescapable part of DAO operations, unfortunately. But it’s healthy - people getting upset means they care. Some of the DAO veterans know the proposal’s author well, and there might be some lingering bad blood from the early days. This is also not a bad thing; we need polarizing forces to break groupthink.
I love and appreciate you @BurnVictim
I’ll grant you that the stables have been full, but I have been able to stake on occasion. Your point is valid. On the other hand, I’ve been able to stake to wBTC without issue. I don’t own any LINK so cannot comment on that LP.
Let’s put it to a vote then, and let the DAO decide.
I would wager a significant sum that this board would be a lot more civil if vBNT were required to post. I would go out on a limb to say that it seems the ones who make the most noise have vortexed all of their voting power away.
Its curious that a lot of new accounts were created these last 2 days after one Ethereum address unstaked all their BNT from the pools and swapped it for vBNT at the best rate since Vortex implementation
Repetitive chin scratching may lead to development of a rash. Please stop spamming my thread. I’ve already asked moderators to take a look at your posting yesterday.
There is no need to be upset. Did you swap all your BNT for vBNT then?
It’s times like these when I wish moderators would actually exercise their power.
This user DarkKnight has made no effort to argue for or against the increased fee in the vortex.
It’s a possibility. But consider the counterargument: The proposer could have just bought a huge amount of vBNT.
In any case, it doesn’t matter. Arguments stand on their own merits, and there is no shortage of strength on either side of this one. I am genuinely interested to see what the DAO decides.
^
you making a vBNT coup attempt to put the peg back above 0.5 only makes the Vortex 50% less efficient than it was was before. Maybe just put it back where it was? It would have the same effect as a 10% fee.
One more reason that an increased burn should be implemented.
A higher vBNT price increases the cost to buy voting power.
Agreed.
Honestly, I am not against this proposal. My ambition has been to get the burn rate to 20% eventually. If the DAO thinks it is a good idea to shortcut there, so be it.
A basic economics course would do wonders for that brain of yours.
Expected inflation/interest rate changes are what drives the market, not the FED’s actual decision making process.
Same can be said for the burn. It’s quite plausible that an increase in the expected burn rate will do a lot more for the peg than an actual increase.
Thus why you bought a lot of vBNT before this post.
Not that it matters - but is anyone stopping you?
No just shining a light, like I said, no need to be upset, especially since you’re not denying it.
I think I have satisfied my obligations. Posts from DarkKnight will be considered spam and disregarded by me unless a moderator notifies me that I am required to reply.
If anyone has an argument for Why a high vBNT price is bad for the network I would be happy to engage.
If the comments aren’t specific to the proposal, it’s ok to ignore it. You have been highly engaged throughout this thread; no one could accuse you of ignoring community feedback.
In general, I think it is better to modify the proposal based on community feedback, but you have no obligation to do so (as you are aware). It might be healthier to collaborate more, rather than fervently defending the draft. But it’s fine. Your responses are perfectly ample.
@BurnVictim Do you have a response to this point? It seems clear that people are on board for this change, just not as quickly as you want.
