It decreases the burn effectiveness; however, it also makes the vortex more attarctive to use. There is no right answer.
1 Like
I disagree entirely.
base level assumption - higher price vbnt price = reduced burn effectiveness
the right answer - higher price leads to more vortexing, expansion of token TVL, more swap fees due to reduced rates brought by more liquidity, which in turn burns more vBNT even at higher prices
2 Likes
You might be right. If this goes ahead, I will be interested to see how the system responds.
You are certainly right that more vortexing will occur. Which is a good reason to support a higher burn rate.
1 Like
If a burn increase to 10% were to be implemented before the date of this snapshot posting, Iād be open to considering, but not willing to confirm that a proposal to increase to 20% effective immediately after a successful vote would not be posted. In fact, some troll from the board would probably post it and then blame me for reneging.
Edit: There is no way to ensure that the user who posted the snapshot is the same user who created the governance post. The other voters may decide to continue moving forward with the proposal.
I didnāt just come up with this idea because I am the only voter. As a politician would, Iāve been out and about discussing and finding my voters. I know where Iām well received, and where Iām not. For the same reason politicians opt not to visit certain cities. The number of votes matter, not who, or where they are from.
1 Like
I think at this stage, it is clear that you are committed to the 20% hike. Your personal motivations notwithstanding, it is likely to be a good move for the protocol, albeit something of a shock.
I am excited for this vote. I really feel like it could go either way.
2 Likes
Just imagine the price of vBNT if there were no speculators willing to bid.
It would look a lot worse, I do believe.
We are witnessing a heroic and courageous act.
2 Likes
this falls apart due to a core misconception
base level assumption - higher liquidity = higher swap fees
we know its not true due to our LINK, ENJ, MATIC, REN, etc. pools being the deepest for quite some time, and uniswap and sushiswap still have higher APRs on these pools with less liquidity.
increasing the burn rate to 20% immediately only serves as an attempt to rectify your bad trades on the vortex 87 days ago when you traded for vbnt at a .69 rate, and cause the vortex to burn vBNT less efficiently, at the cost of all LPs APRs.
2 Likes
Are you calling your own proposal heroic and courageous? 
3 Likes
That doesnāt seem to be a response to the question I posted. Why do you oppose a change to 10%, then gather data?
1 Like
I would like to see the TVL expand at an increased rate. A higher burn ratio will bring this to fruition immediately. Tokens dropped by -75% over the past two weeks. The bull case for Bancor via the Vortex can be brought forward by 8 months with implementation of this vote.
1 Like
I am calling speculators who buy vBNT and act as virtual loan sharks courageous. The original mechanisms in place ma(k/d)e it a highly risky endeavor.
2 Likes
There is nothing to gather ādataā about. We are giving away 50-60k BNT per day in liquidity mining rewards. Taxing fee APY at 20% to āget backā a fraction of it in permanently locked liquidity is the same thing as the US government charging income tax on the stimulus. It matters not, except on principal. Itās time to make the Vortex Great again.
2 Likes
What you said would make sense if the stimulus checks were indeed taxable.
On inflationary LM - the data is clear - Your inflationary concerns are overblown. 75% of all LM is being restaked into the pools, allowing more liquidity to be added on the TKN side.
Attempting to further tax already low APY is like injecting bleach to cure coronavirus, I personally wouldnāt be disappointed if you attempted that, but it wonāt cure the problem you think you have.
The actual problem is low APR. This doesnāt address that at all.
3 Likes
I guess I view the low value of vbnt:bnt as a pressing reason to up the burn rateā¦especially since thatās what would have been done originally anyway. Also, I will admit to being super noob but I did think that the original variable burn rate had been approved when I bought vbnt, are you saying I should have dumped when they changed it to flat if I didnāt agree with that? But by then I was already down and felt locked inā¦you see the problem right? Kind of a good-for-the-goose-good-for-the-gander situation.
1 Like
There is obviously something to gather data about. You are dismissive of ārounding errorā pools but this would be a significant hit against them. We already have disadvantages against Uniswap with the breadth of pools and the red tape of whitelisting. This could dry up the smaller pools and damage all long tail pools.
Also to do the āwhat would APYs look likeā exercise again, 20% burn would change 5% APY to 4.2%, 15% to 12.6%, and 50% to 42%. These are significant drops.
Overall Iām unconvinced that a move directly to 20% is healthy and I canāt vote for this.
2 Likes
Anyway, I love the project and am appreciative of what you guys do. I respect the situation that there are risks in crypto and protocols/promises can change. I just had a twinge of āhaha, get rekt noobā when I see that the pros who levered up seem to have more defenders than speculators like myself who could only really afford the gas cost of a single bancor swap and chose to long vbnt with it.
3 Likes
Feel free to vote no.
Again, I point you to the fact that the token LPās of ārounding errorā pools are getting single sided deposits with 100% exposure to their favorite coin, as well as impermanent loss insurance.
These are not free. They cost Bancor network significantly.
If a user is unhappy with a drop from 5% to 4.2% APY ā I guess he can swap 50% of his token into eth and then go to uni/sushi and face the -40% from IL? Sounds reasonable according to you.
1 Like
You didnāt respond to my last two posts.
Are you at all concerned about the direct economic hit to non-BNT LPs and how this could hurt motivation to stake on Bancor?
You have mentioned that we should overshoot on the burn while Rewards are active. But if we overshoot, low APYs may encourage a large wave of liquidity to leave Bancor. This wouldnāt be good for the protocol or long-term BNT holders. What do you think about this scenario of taking too many fees away from LPs, especially once rewards end?
1 Like
I can see your point but at the same time the ratio now is certainly much better than what it was some days ago. A point to make is that keeping the ratio low for now allows for much better returns at a later time. This proposal will certainly help bring more upwards push but the biggest beneficiaries (myself included) will be the vortex LPers. A For vote is a small reallocation of fees from every pool to the vortex LPers. the counter argument is that it will increase speculative value and lending volume of vBNT which could in turn allow us to open up more space giving further stability to vBNT price but this is not necessarily what will happen (because of the nature of vBNT we can only put so much voting power up for sale).
3 Likes
Thank you for seeing my side of things as well; I appreciate your efforts at explaining.
1 Like