Discussion on V2.1 pools

This poll acts to measure general sentiment and does not relay any personal interest or opinion.

During discussions on Telegram it has become clear that there are mixed opinions on the status and direction of V2.1 pools and migration. It is fact that certain V2.1 depositors would greatly benefit if given the chance to withdraw directly, as certain pool deficits in V3 are larger than those in V2.1.

Yudi has confirmed that technical limitations should not be a factor in this discussion, and that there are indeed options of reopening withdraws on V2.1 without forced migration to V3 or reactivation of ILP, but these would require dev time. It is also stated that these adaptations could most likely be completed in a few weeks.

Please vote on what your preferred action on the V2.1 pool deposits would be, and elaborate in the comments.

  • Use resources to rebuild V2.1 withdraw function, without ILP
  • Force migration to V3
  • Take no action on this subject

0 voters

How can we even vote on this while its lacking the most important information. Whats the exact surplus of all pools on v2.1 and how much defocit can be covered of those on v3. Also this surplus is position attached. Hence it cannot be used for only those LPs on v2.1.

Adding my personal opinion here.

The reputational damage Bancor has taken is going to be a key factor in any currently suggested recovery. Any option of fee generation to fill the deficit will rely on reclaiming liquidity and trading volume.

Adherence to past promises is key in restoring faith in the brand, and seeing as depositors were told they would have full control over which contract they would use (also foregoing any possible benefits of new contracts), it is important that the Bancor DAO enforces that right here and now.

I don’t actually see how any of what you’re asking is relevant to the question if unaffected depositors should be forced into deficit. There is also no claim that surplus should benefit individual V2.1 depositors, it should indeed be moved to V3 as it belongs to the protocol.

Please move all discussions to the main thread:

@Loverplaid I will leave this thread open for three days but will be closing it afterwards. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, do so in the thread above. Thanks.

See this proposal here. We don’t have the ability to force migrate the v2.1 LPs under the Ugradeability Clause.

By mandating a forced migration, token owners are no longer left with the choice to move into the new system or stay in the old one. The elimination of that choice is a material breach of the Ugradeability Clause.

The worst thing you can do is force migrate the v2.1 LPs into B3. Although that is a tempting solution for all vBNT holders, be warned of the legal implications of such actions. It’s direct contradiction to the Ugradeability Clause and would likely be a material breach of contract. Even in the absence of a lawsuit, there would be FUD to no end.

tl;dr - I think option to exit via v2.1 should happen even WITHOUT a vote because the Upgradeability Clause is crystal clear on its face, and these terms were already voted in by the DAO.


Cheers, done! Afaic you can close it now, no point in diverging the discussion.