It seems after discussion with a few contributors that the recovery process for vBNT LP’s is a bit murky and not fully fleshed out yet. What are some of the ideas at the moment for these LP’s to be made whole?
Sort of running off of @leighs discussion/idea of building a Bancor Treasury.
Could active vBNT LP’s be given a share or option on the future treasury equal to the future value of a vBNT?
For instance, if the entire process to recoup the deficit ends up needing 50m vBNT to be burnt, then there would be 50m TvBNT shares issued to those LP’s that have had their stakes burnt from the recovery process.
The TvBNT would give those LP’s the right to sell off a portion of the treasury to recoup their vBNT at equal value to the current price of vBNT. And would also give them voting rights on what is done with treasury funds (as per Leighs idea of Marketing etc)
This is not a complete idea, just opening up for further discussion. The main idea here is to give vBNT LP’s something desirable to be earned at the end of the recovery process. It could also be argued that vBNT LP’s are super users that want to see the recovery fulled formed and would most likely not be bad actors as they are the last to be reimbursed.
@yudi, @mbr Please chime in. The topic doesn’t have to be about the Treasury per se, but the lack of future remuneration for vBNT LP’s. Thank you.
I am entirely against the idea that vBNT holders should have EVER been given ILP.
What is the point of the vortex buying vBNT then reimbursing the vBNT LPs for IL with new BNT?
the vortex buys vbnt from vBNT lps to remove their bnt from circulation
then the protocol reissues bnt to make up for the IL that the vBNT lp received
in the above scenario, the vortex buying the vBNT in the first place seems like a waste of time and protocol funds…
protocol - " im going to buy vbnt and burn them to lock away bnt… im helping the protocol, yay "
user - " hey you bought my vbnt, now I have less vbnt! wtf ? "
protocol - " oh im sorry, here is some BNT to make up for the vBNT that I bought with the protocol funds "
Where in this post did it speak of vBNT LP’s getting BNT back?
I’d appreciate it if actually read the discussion before posting your mocking response next time.
The post is asking for a different type of reimbursement for vBNT LP’s.
And it seems like you just expect vBNT LP’s to just toss away their TKN for just for the sake of a protocol recovery?
yeah youre right, you didn’t ask for vBNT lps to get bnt back. that was my assumption and I suppose Im wrong for that …
but what else can they get back in return from the protocol besides bnt tokens? any of the profits generated from various ways should be used to repairing the deficits first
also
do you think that it makes sense for the protocol to pay ILP on vBNT? ( im talking about v2.1 → today )
does it make sense for the protocol to buy vbnt from vbnt lps, then distribute bnt to vbnt lps when they incur IL? without taking offence to what Im trying to say here, logically… does this make sense??
if so then why bother even buy the vbnt in the first place if the protocol is simply then going to give back bnt to make up those losses
I still stand by my point.
giving vBNT lp’s anything … ilp … or anything of that matter to make them “whole” again… should never have been implemented in the first place. this is a bug in logic
Again, this discussion is not asking for vBNT to be returned/reimbursed, I have no idea what you are reading, but it has nothing to do with what was suggested.
You point is flawed. You are suggesting vBNT LP’s have no remuneration? That is absolutely unfair to have them fund the entire recovery for literally nothing. They will no longer be able to un-stake their underlying BNT or have a vote in any protocol proposals.
youre asking for vbnt stakers to get something in return to help them recover their positions. stop playing dumb here … i dont understand how you have no idea what im talking about here. yes you did not ask to be reimbursed in bnt… i get that. point done –
and no my point is not flawed
you are coming from the stance where you want your position to be made whole again because thats whats fair… you probably have no intention on voting with your vbnt… hence you staked it to earn apy… and you want to stake your vbnt risk free and get back your principle while earning apy %
you sir are COMPLETELY ignoring what i wrote about the error in logic… take a step back and assume that you aren’t a vbnt lp so you can think straight for a second
protocol - BUYS vBNT so that it can support the protocol and help to lock away BNT
user - stakes(LP) vBNT to earn apy%
protocol - buys vBNT … user sold some of his vBNT to protocol …
user - incurs IL… but protocol is designed to reimburse users IL w/ bnt ( not the case today but lets continue) user expects to receive BNT to make up for the vBNT which was burnt
protocol - distributes BNT to user
what was the point in the protocol spending its funds which it generated from fees on vbnt, simply to then pay out BNT to the LP?
if this is the case then why did the protocol buy the vBNT to begin with?
the goal is to lock away bnt after burning vbnt… but if it distributes bnt from ilp when the user pulls out their vbnt lp position… then what good did burning the vbnt do at the end result? its a net break even … yet the protocol wasted its fees…
I get your point… not fair for vbnt lps … but can you not see a problem with the above scenario ??
Absolutely yes! I fully expect vBNT LP’s to be made whole NOT with BNT OR vBNT as you have wrongly implied I have said THREE TIMES NOW. ETH, DAI or the equivalent value of the tokens future value are completely fine forms of remuneration.
You are suggesting A TKN LP to fund the entire recovery for nothing?? Give your head a shake. Not continuing any further discussion with you. There is ZERO point for an LP to fund the recovery for absolutely nothing. What an asinine assumption.
Your response is exactly why this topic needs to be more openly talked about.
I asked above to take a step back from your position and take a higher level look at this
yes i get your point, reimburse with something other than vbnt or bnt … ive said this already a few times… i get it… stop it … I AM NOT IMPLYING ANY LONGER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING… drop this point and get to the logic … or the error in logic that was there right from the get go
from v2.1 → up until ILP was removed… from that perspective … try to understand the points that i brought up
should lps have to fund the recovery? no im not saying that… but i am saying that ILP on vBNT was an error in logic from the get go
Every single one of your points has been littered with false assumptions of what I’ve been trying to point out.
The very first post made was to give the LP’s a share of a future treasury or TvBNT. You’ve spun things off into your own discussion about whatever you think this is about. All the while being extremely crass and rude each time. I really really don’t care for your opinion, as it has nothing to do with what my original post is about.
And no, ILP on V3 made sense as vBNT was/is a decaying asset.
You’ve stated that you agree vBNT LP’s should be made whole and not with BNT which is fine, I never once suggested that. So I’ll leave it there and get back to the topic of what will vBNT LP’s get as remuneration
I never said I want to make vBNT lps whole again. Not with BNT, nor vBNT.
I feel bad for anyone who lost $$ during this.
I disagree with vBNT lps ever being allowed to get ILP… ← this very notion is like the defi meme where the – extension outlet is plugged into itself… or the elephant is using its trunk to suck its own … — the logic of paying ilp for vBNT is flawed
If the dao decides to help vBNT stakers, I hope prioritizing this is close to the bottom of the totem pole
you also did bring this point up. sure you didnt directly say that you want vbnt holders to be made whole… but anyone with a few brain cells can connect the dots to what you were eluding to here
stakers of vbnt are no more important than those of any other TKN pool, so if this topic does eventually get more widely discussed, it should happen at a much later date
Of course I’m asking for vBNT LP’s to be made whole, great detective work.
Already covered that if you would have read the initial message the first time.
Your posts are Incoherent ramblings of someone who assumes people will the resources to fix the deficit will do it for nothing and continue to do so. “And lets talk about this at a much later date.” LOL sure ok.
There is a road map to recovery based on the increased burning of vBNT and there is no path to recovery for those who provide the first path.
my thoughts may seem incoherent because you lack the ability to comprehend what I previously discussed and you were fixated on the notion that I didn’t understand you correctly, because of this, the argument did not go straight forward.
vbnt stakers are not super users. they are people who wanted to earn more apy with their free bags of vbnt which they received from staking bnt.
did I miss where you said they should be last? yeah I did, but youre the author and you yourself first discussed ideas around making vbnt lps whole
making vbnt stakers whole was a problem to begin with as the logic is flawed. it makes no sense for the vortex to buy your vbnt, burn it, then reimburse the vbnt staker because they suffered from IL. makes no sense.
so yes, discuss this at a much later date? yeah youre last. use your vbnt to vote… oh wait… you dont have any ( i suppose i should say you dont want to unstake them atm )
Yes. There is no word on what vBNT LP’s will get as a form of remuneration to recoup their vortexed vBNT. With ILP being turned off, what will users that stake in the pool receive as compensation. There is no way for them to be made whole.
This was a lead into an idea of the LP’s receiving shares of a future treasury as a form of recouping.
We already know that the recovery will take time and will involve multiple different features, as the vortex on its own isn’t going to be enough.
It will involve other fee generating features etc., and these might have a different impact on the vBNT deficit.
Let’s see what happens once these features start rolling out and then we can return to this and see if it’s an actual issue.
Every single one of these proposed features are geared towards increasing vBNT burns, so I fail to see how this makes anything better for vBNT LP’s.
You’ve stated on Telegram that there are no active features being coded for any recovery method at the moment. So while this goes along with you this will take time notion. Why then do vBNT LP’s have to feel like they are not going have even an idea of how they will be made whole for at least a year or more time? They are crucial to the current path to recovery, I don’t in any way see this as being acceptable.
And pushing this off to the side is not an appropriate answer in my opinion. If you identify this as being a potential problem, why are we not collectively getting ahead of it?
"