Increase BBS Token Funding Limit to 160K BNT

This proposal is expected to appear on Snapshot for voting on March 26,2023


  • The BBS project created a consumer facing application for the mass market with blockchain sitting under the hood, and Bancor is the chief source of liquidity and volume for the BBS token on Ethereum.
  • BBS is growing, has dozens of thriving message boards and a quickly growing user base, and it just released a mobile application.
  • BBS has always supplied BBS liquidity and intends to continue doing so.
  • BBS has always covered its own IL protection (35K still remaining) and intends to continue doing so.
  • We request Bancor to increase trading liquidity on the BBS-BNT pool to 160k.


In the time since the BBS pool was first created, the project has grown into a larger community with more message boards and users.

As such, we seek a deeper liquidity pool as we would like the liquidity to grow along with the project.

Benefits to Bancor

  • Increased vortex revenue due to higher volume of trading.

Vote For: To increase BBS funding limit to 160k BNT
Vote Against: To do nothing


We should be more transparent about this.Everyone should know BBS was founded by the same Bancor founders.Here is a conflict of interests.We all know we should not print any more BNTs.

Let’s face it,$12 in fees in the last 7 days?That’s $10.8 in BNT burning and $1.2 for LPs? You want to print thousands of BNT for this?

“ Benefits to Bancor

  • Increased vortex revenue due to higher volume of trading.”

This makes absolutely no sense.It’s a vote against the protocol.


Agreed, printing more BNT is the opposite of what the project should be doing, and especially for projects that don’t bring any considerable volume. It’s just too counterproductive to issue nearly $90,000 of BNT for $12 of weekly fees, would take way too long for BBS vortex volume to burn that issuance.

Also agree that it feels like a conflict of interest. At the very least it’s a bad look during a time when protocol should be avoiding any bad publicity.


Any project can propose to the Bancor DAO to have their proposal voted in vBNT holders. Ultimately, Bancor is a protocol that is DAO control and every vBNT holders has to weigh the pros and cons of each proposal when making their decision.

1 Like

Hello @mh89spd and @ImshermanentLoss and @glenn,

Thank you for you comments!

I am happy to reply to everything.

Yes, Eyal is indeed a Founder of both BBS and Bancor and this is certainly no secret - but this aligns our interests, not the opposite.

At the moment, the BBS project is growing and we need more liquidity on-chain. You can easily see this need by looking at the price impact of trade of only 1 ETH.


Nobody understands the importance of liquidity for token projects more than the Bancor DAO.

To the point raised about printing that BNT for a pool that doesn’t generate enormous volume and fees:

  1. We are a smaller project and often volume does come more in spurts than larger projects. I would expect volume to fluctuate.

  2. Bancor is the only place where users can buy BBS on Ethereum. I would have suspected this is a positive thing. For example, during V2.1 many pools where Bancor held the majority of the liquidity were among the most successful. Our preference would be to allow for more liquidity on Ethereum without needing to use an alternative AMM. But of course this decision falls to the Bancor DAO.

  3. This is just a reminder that we were among the first to use External IL protection and the EILP budget remains available.


  1. We hope this proposal passes so we can have additional liquidity for BBS.

  2. In any case, if this passes or not, we are super excited about Carbon :sunglasses:

Lastly, if anyone wants to learn more about BBS, our app, messages boards or anything else, please feel to reach out :pray: