The only thing a lower ratio now does is make sure that those who vortexed early on are able to exit without losing money. It’s a self-enriching fantasy world that heavy vortex users are propagating when they disagree with this proposal. The worst part is that they have no vBNT to protect themselves when the time to vote arrives.
1 Like
I sincerely hope that the DAO votes for the best interest of the Bancor protocol and long term BNT value instead of trying to save a bad trade.
I made the same bad trade.
1 Like
If all Uniswap/Sushiswap LPs are facing -40% returns, why do you think they have yet to move to Bancor which provides Impermanent Loss Protection?
Don’t you think that higher APYs look better on the Home Screen to entice TKN holders to stake on Bancor?
After all, only BNT LPs Can actually use the vortex for leverage. Shouldn’t we be thinking about what’s best for TKN LPs as well?
3 Likes
I’m of the opinion that it wouldn’t have been a bad trade had the original variable burn rate been implemented as approved when I bought.
2 Likes
Space is full. Unsatisfied users will leave and make space for eager participants.
Also see this reply.
Bancor has had a luxury of being full to the brim for several months on majority of all large cap pools. We have never tested what is “okay” for LP’s. We’ve given them rewards hand over fist without taking an ounce of fees to help sustain anything. The time to be greedy is now, while they are still receiving subsidies, and while there are lines out the door to replace the current users.
1 Like
They can’t afford the gas! Haha.
1 Like
Regardless, we should be voting for the best thing for Bancor, not us failing to close out our trade when the DAO approved the flat rate.
1 Like
he doesnt know
The majority of liquidity in UNI and SUSHI is NOT organic LP. They are VC funds that own significant stakes in the “governance token.” The act of leaving liquidity in the protocol is what allows them to dump worthless UNI onto the foreheads of retail buyers. This liquidity has not and will not ever leave to “come to bancor”
2 Likes
The only pool that is legitimately full all the time is LINK. Arguably, we don’t need more liquidity in that pool anyways.
The stablecoin pools are closed not full.
ETH, Wbtc and the other major pools have space.
1 Like
Thing is, I actually do think it makes sense to buy back a lot of vbnt and lock up liquidity for the protocol. I’m pretty convinced it would be good for the protocol.
1 Like
The best thing for bancor will never be agreed upon by all.
One this is for sure, those who have the most money at stake will lead us down the path they chose
2 Likes
Have you ever considered that removal of tokens would actually lead to an increased APY…? Ground breaking thought… I know.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t you call the 5% fee today a “fee” for rewards.
Besides, 70% of rewards go to BNT LPs so you might want to bring down how many rewards we are actually “giving away” to TKN LPs.
Finally, since the exchange rate of vBNT/BNT has come up to .5, shouldn’t your proposal to increase the burn rate also go down? You should follow your own logic on how you reached 20%.
1 Like
The 5% vortex fee is terrible wording imo.
The “burn” “fee” or whatever the fuck you want to call it, is an insurance premium.
It’s the charge for IL insurance and the luxury of being a single sided deposit with full exposure to your favorite token.
Sushi taxes LP’s at 16.66% and provides neither IL insurance nor single sided deposit.
Knowing this statistic - Any “burn” below 16.66% is absolutely terrible strategy for Bancor.
Add in the benefits. AND LM. One could make the argument that 100% of swap fee APY could be taken as “Vortex fee” on pools with LM and in the 20-30% range for pools without LM.
1 Like
Do you have any proof of this conspiracy theory? Preferably one that doesn’t originate from a Simp Twitter thread.
Sure seems like a bad investment for VCs to be willing to lose 40% of their money to Impermanent Loss for a Uni token. Seems like it would take more money to provide liquidity on those protocols than it would to orchestrate a dump and pump.
1 Like
this post should be pinned.
1 Like
Quite a bit of it was happening at a .3 exchange rate. Bancor has locked up over 277k BNT tokens worth $1.4 Million dollars at the current BNT price in about 1.5 months.
That seems like a pretty significant success.
There’s no guarantee that it’ll lock up more with a higher fee rate because it’s also likely to bring up the price of vBNT.
Furthermore, it’s been argued multiple times that this proposal alone may be enough to bring up the rate, as has already happened. By definition that means that Bancor will be locking up LESS BNT, even with the higher fee.
1 Like
read the thread before wasting every other readers time.
1 Like
but the current boost in vbnt:bnt could be totally temporary if this proposal doesn’t go through or is watered down. It’s just a bunch of overlevered apes afraid someone is about to call BS on their BS.
1 Like
Just because you wrote that doesn’t mean it’s true.
More BNT staked does not necessarily mean more liquidity.
As you know, when a BNT LP stakes, it replaces a protocol minted BNT. This does not raise liquidity in the pool.
The only pools that may see an increase in liquidity are the pools that are full. Mainly LINK, which arguably does not need more liquidity.
The ETH, wbtc, and every other pool that has room for the TKN side, which is most of them, will not benefit from MORE space opening in those pools.
2 Likes