Future vBNT LP reimbursement

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


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

1 Like

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

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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 )

Assumptions assumptions. What a pleasure Jindo. Looking forward to our next one sided chat.


@ohweoh what’s the reasoning behind this discussion? Are you worried that vBNT LPs are going to be treated differently than other LPs?

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.

I wouldn’t assume vBNT LPs would get a worse deal though. I would imagine any plan will cover all LPs.

But how is the question.
TKN holders get made whole with vBNT being burnt to equalize the deficit.

How do vBNT holders get made whole? There is a permanent deficit for them. That is what vBNT LP’s are frantically trying to understand.

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?

No active features are currently being coded since many are in the research phase and none have yet went to a gov discussion/vote yet, but some of these include a fundamental change in the pool design.
If resources go towards vBNT specifically, it means that these resources aren’t being used for the overall protocol recovery.
The DAO can always decide to compensate specific LPs if it makes sense but in terms of priorities I’d still recommend to focus on protocol wide recovery.

But that goes back to the initial point of this discussion that I brought up in the first post near the end. It was assumed and now basically confirmed that vBNT LP’s will be the last to be made whole. Not only should this be a topic brought up and very widely known, there should be a discussion based on what type of recovery those LP’s will be given, and frankly what kind of incentive to give to current and future LP’s. The potential solution I proposed was a future treasury with shares of it being owned by the vBNT LP’s who won’t have a vote or access to their vortexed funds for a considerable time after the rest of the protocol,s LP’s are made whole.

No I don’t think vBNT LPs should be last to made whole or if that’s actually the case.
If the recovery gives certain LPs a priority, it will require balancing by a different mechanism IMO, to even things out.
The bottom line is that I’m all for a fair solution for all LPs regardless of the token.
But let’s see where we’re headed, I wouldn’t assume vBNT LPs will be left behind.