Lack of communication

[foxsteven]

I share in your desire for Bancor to be great.

I dont agree that there is silence from contributors. In fact, on the thread I assume you are referring to there are many contributors who took part:

Adding features to the BNT token

i guess i’m seeing the staking option as another “move fees around” option, whereas premiums is “make people pay a subscription for the service” so it becomes a new revenue model in itself if managed well the “profit” of staked BNT is hard to quantify, we can’t even quantify how much liquidity is “enough” or “too much” on the TKN side despite ~2 years of trying to do that, and this sounds more difficult to measure than that - Proposal: Limit on-curve liquidity to max(520 x 7 day fees, 100k BNT)…

@VictimBurner

Where are all the foundation paid contributors, why are they so silent? It really seems like they are communicating internally and only bother to inform the DAO when an idea is ready for vote.

This could not be further from the truth. I would even venture to say that @alphavalion has been leading the protocol’s governance for a while now.

Bancorians for a stronger BNT

A post surfaced in the past about retiring vBNT and Bancorians should read that proposal to get an understanding about this thread I have taken that thread and turned it into a set of proposals to get the DAO moving forward on this process. While creating proposals to sunset Bancor 3 for different tokens I skipped vBNT as it is different than the others. Now that Carbon is out on Ethereum, the discussion can continue on how to sunset vBNT. I think we will need these proposals to make this a…

Each of these 5 steps were later posted as proposals, voted on and implemented.

You can see the conversations where at times we agree and at times we do not agree. In my opinion, this is how DAOs should work.

@VictimBurner

It has been 1.5 years without a usecase for BNT.

Following @alphavalion’s proposal, it is the governance token.

@VictimBurner

It became clear recently that the main reason for the silence is that many contributors are simply scared to go to jail for talking about BNT. If you are a contributor and you are too scared to discuss BNT because of your fear to go to jail for talking about it, then please consider stepping down and making room for people who aren’t scared to talk about BNT because of random SEC complaint that doesn’t even mention BNT. You can’t work for a crypto project if you refuse to talk about the projects underlying token in public. Team members of all crypto projects are talking about their tokens but for some reason Bancor contributors are too scared to even brainstorm ideas with the community due to some fear to go to jail for that. We can’t continue this way. Our funds are on the line and while I understand your personal fears they really shouldn’t stop us from improving BNT. It has been 1.5 years without a usecase for BNT.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Actually, more than one.

I, personally, am happy to discuss the use case and the token.

I committed in one of the telegram chats to always comment, provide thoughts or feedback if asked. I stand by this. The exception (which I pointed out in the telegram) are proposals or other things that are clearly directed towards price action. You’re right that BNT was not named in the recent cases. But I argue that the project is better of with that being the case. Avoiding some of the mistakes that got others into trouble should be a goal for everyone involved.

So yes, let’s make Bancor great.

Yes, I am happy to help develop the product and ideas.

No, if there is a proposal clearly directed towards price action or similar mechanisms that appear all over SEC cases- I will not be an active participant, and we are all better off not being mentioned in those cases.