July 10th Community Call: Request for Questions

I know the Foundation funds only serve to grant projects and support protocol development. But how are you going to promote anything if the protocol die and BNT price goes straight to 0?

Bancor raised ~400k ETH at ~350$ during 2017 ICO. Given current ETH price, we would need 26k ETH to erase protocol deficit. That’s not even 10% of raised funds. So why not use these funds once the protocol design will be fixed?

The subject should be put on the table right now in my opinion. If the community could have the guarantee that, as a very LAST resort, foundation will use part of its funds to erase protocol deficit, the trust in Bancor project would be immediately recovered, with positive impact on BNT price.

Otherwise, how are you going to erase 35M$+ of deficit by just changing line of code? As a software engineer, if you have a solution, I’m really interested ^^

Some of your proposals to fix things already have been voted last week. Since, protocol deficit increased by 3M$+ and BNT price can’t manage to break above 0.5$.

Any comment on this?

Plus, given ETH and LINK are part of the biggest LPs on Bancor, with already high deficits in each. With ETH merge and Link staking coming in a few months, aren’t you afraid to see protocol deficit explose even more if ETH and Link prices start to skyrocket? What are your plans if it happens?

People staying in the protocol want to know if their funds are safe. We are taking much more risk than those who decided to withdraw at a loss finally (risk = maybe we will lose everything if the protocol can’t recover).

Are we guaranteed to get our entire stack back someday? We don’t ask for a precise timeline. If you’re sure just say yes, otherwise just say no so people can take their decision accordingly (to withdraw or not).

Currently, we already lose each day since Bancor saves BNT LPs by allowing them to withdraw their BNTs whole. Once they withdraw their BNTs, they dump BNT price.

Please follow this topic: Proposal: Disable BNT withdrawal

Will you please organize a call directly between the foundation and the community? If not, please explain why the foundation is opposed to appearing.

1 Like
  1. What are your plans to make LPs whole?

  2. What is the go-forward plan for survival? 100% IL protection was a BIG part of how we get liquidity. Given that we are constant product AMM, we need more liquidity than Curve or Uniswap. How will we get that liquidity? How will we instill confidence again?

  3. Is the solution going to be 100% dependent on the community? Or does team or Foundation actually have a plan in place?

  4. What’s the appetite for the team/foundation to rebuild? Do they have it in them to rebuild through a bear where they’re now demonized in the same bucket as LUNA, Celsius, and 3AC?

1 Like

What price increase of BNT itself would erase the total protocol deficit?

How much TVL is still staked on v2.1?
Of that total how many positions are still in surplus?
If positions that migrated to v3 were in surplus then why wasn’t their surplus migrated at that time? The blog 4 July update is worded to suggest that Surplus was not migrated.
How would moving the entire v2.1 TVL to v3 increase/decrease the deficit?

Why has zero data been provided to the Community at this point? The first chart I’ve seen was the Protocol Deficit in the 4 July Blog. Authoritative data should be provided so we are all on the same page.
If data is being used internally it should be provided so the DAO/Community can help and drive discussion.

I would like to ask why the team wants to dilute the v2 by forcing migration?

And I would like to know what their answer is to the fact that if they do, v2 users will get the shortest stick out of anyone, because they couldn’t act early to withdraw like some v3 users due to uncertainty about their future and lack of clarification, and the fact that their side of the liquidity was not underwater.

I would also like to hear the team’s thoughts on making v2 users whole on their initial stake, and using the surplus link and rewards to the benefit of v3 users. Which would be the most equitable outcome without making v2 holders the main victims.

Can you ask Mark his opinion on if it’s more advantageous to burn BNT or vBNT? What does he think of a 50/50 split?

Please and thank you!

Have you seen this post on discourse? Feedback Request: Potential Direction for Recovery

We know it all depends on the solutions & the one voted on by the DAO. We also know that full ILP back is not really an option in terms of the protocol moving forward. The DAO can vote on it, but that could be the death of the protocol in its current state. Bottom line- the focus should be on the new solutions/proposals and if one of the solutions is voted for, and is a solution that includes a version of protection- that will be the path forward. Timeline depends on spec, details, DAO discussion, etc. This decision is not for the team to make or for TKN stakers, but for vBNT/BNT holders to make.

  • Enabling deposits would definitely require significant warnings as to what the consequences of staking in the protocol currently are. BNT might be ok, but TKN still might be too soon. Specific projects have requested deposits be re-enabled also. Possible restraints- Above a certain deficit, not allowing deposits/trades. It might be beneficial to possibly create a post regarding deposits and see more feedback from the community/BancorDAO?
  • Also, like all decisions made, re-enabling deposits would require a proposal and must be voted in favor of by the vBNT/BNT holders

Have you seen this post on discourse? Feedback Request: Potential Direction for Recovery

Have you seen this post on discourse? Feedback Request: Potential Direction for Recovery or tune in to the community call by chance? Also, weekly blog updates are being released to be sure the community stays as informed and as up to date as possible

Once a solution is decided on by the BancorDAO an approximate timeline might be doable. At the moment though, all possible solutions are still being considered, along with the suggestions and feedback from the community. It’s necessary sufficient time for viability, data, discussion, modifications, implementation are all taken into account right now when considering a realistic timeline.

-Whether or not we need to move towards something more managed. One of the things that we might be able to do after we start bringing these solutions front and center is we can actually potentially limit the deficit levels on specific pools or every pool within margins. For example, if the deficit exceeds 10% or something like that, we can refuse to sell anymore of that TKN and repurpose it for things like borrowing and lending until it comes back up to a certain level. Something he encourages a continued conversation around.

1 Like

One specific proposal that recently passed a DAO vote was in regards to the vortex burn rate increasing. The Bancor Vortex was introduced to V2.1 to introduce a mechanism whereby BNT economic supply can be effectively reduced. In response to the recent crisis, the community proposed new parameters, and the BancorDAO has approved the proposal to accelerate this process. At the time of writing, 70% of fees on Bancor v2.1 are being utilised by the Vortex, and increasing to 100% in the upcoming week, whereas 30% of fees on v3 are being collected for the same purpose.
Another was to cancel future BNT liquidity mining rewards- ensuring the deficit doesn’t grow due to the raw inflation of LMR.

Personally I think this should be at the forefront of discussion to be implemented ASAP

Most of the current LPs are willing to wait for additional fee revenues but the constant concern of TKN mooning vs BNT is too much psychologically for most. Let’s not forget why many people want 100% exposure to a single TKN, I know in ETH and LINKs case most expect to outpace the market, again yet to be seen but this would eliminate that concern.

It appeared from Mark’s response on the call that implementing such a feature has already been discussed in the past and can be done now without too much development.

One specific proposal that recently passed a DAO vote was in regards to the vortex burn rate increasing. The Bancor Vortex was introduced to V2.1 to introduce a mechanism whereby BNT economic supply can be effectively reduced. In response to the recent crisis, the community proposed new parameters, and the BancorDAO has approved the proposal to accelerate this process. At the time of writing, 70% of fees on Bancor v2.1 are being utilised by the Vortex, and increasing to 100% in the upcoming week, whereas 30% of fees on v3 are being collected for the same purpose.
Another was to cancel future BNT liquidity mining rewards- ensuring the deficit doesn’t grow due to the raw inflation of LMR.
Future fee generating features such as protocol arbitrage strategies and lending/borrowing are being considered, along with ideas such as these: Feedback Request: Potential Direction for Recovery