There is much debate and confusion regarding those still in v2.1 feeling that they shouldn’t be required to migrate to B3 in order to withdraw funds. The premise for this is founded in seeing that many of the v2.1 pools are in surplus, which means that if withdrawals were enabled only on v2.1, all in that version could remove their positions in full while also not affecting “B3 situation”. v2.1 position holders argue that by migrating to B3 they will then be put into deficit forcing a loss of funds when they are still in a position of being whole in v2.1.
The reason put out by Bancor for stopping withdrawals on v2.1 and requiring migration to B3 in order to withdrawal positions is:
Bancor v2.1 withdrawals require migration to B3 because otherwise more technical changes would have been involved in a time of emergency. Any changes to the contracts will expose the protocol to unforeseen vulnerabilities and possible exploits, putting liquidity providers’ funds at risk.
Bancor is also designed as an upgradeable unitary system where future versions supersede current ones. In this spirit, the migration process from v2.1 to B3 has not attempted to transfer surpluses on a single position basis. Therefore a significant portion of the perceived surplus present in v2.1 belongs to positions that have been migrated to B3. As a consequence, certain LPs believe that the v2.1 surplus and the B3 deficits should be dealt with on a consolidated basis.
In short, liquidity from v2.1 and B3 is still considered shared liquidity in the sense that that the factors leading up to and resulting in the current situation are not a consequence of B3, but an inherited shortfall of v2.1 simply illustrated clearer in B3. Had the current scenario also happened on V2.1, the results of the current situation would have been the same, if not worse, as B3 gave better insight into the realities of the environment allowing emergency action to take place and protect all LP funds. Therefore, it is the position of the core contributor team that all withdrawals must move through B3 to prevent new security risks and to keep the circumstance and options fair to all.
How this is handled moving forward is ultimately up to the DAO and should be researched and debated so that a proper decision can be made. Hopefully, this forum allows that to happen in a constructive way.
V3 and V2 uses different liquidity methods and there are many differences hence the change in version. V2 users abstained from upgrading because they wanted to test these new upgrades before putting their funds at risk. It is easy to say the same would happen on v2 in retrospect, but even that is not a sure fact as we can never know what really would have happened.
Due to Bancor Team’s initial lack of acknowledgement and later lack of assurance about v2 funds, and that is still an uncertainty today as we talk about it here, v2 users have been robbed of the opportunity to withdraw early at less loss like some v3 users. They waited to be made whole all this time because their funds were at surplus. And the team wants to determine what will happen to v2 after making v2 depositors wait for a month and lose valuable opportunity to act early.
As v2 users, we obviously waited the whole time to be made whole since we had the vision and experience to hold off on migrating to a brand new protocol. Now after almost a month of insolvency on the protocol, an official team member discloses their official position, after putting us on a rollercoaster of uncertainty.
This is unacceptable and amounts to absolute robbery. If this is the official team position, this should have been put to vote a month before instead of today.
What should be made is that v2 users should be made whole on their initial investment. And then surplus $LINK and $BNT rewards should be used to help v3 users.
If Bancor team forcibly takes this to a vote to rob v2 users, v2 users will be the ones getting the shortest stick out of anyone. Whereas in reality they should not have been affected in first place, due to their foresight. I can understand the team’s frustration with v2 users because they were aware that no one is perfect and acted accordingly, and the team are angry at them for being cautious. But robbing them is not the solution.
Here you go over some of the differences between v3 and v2.1 which you so vehemently deny in your post and say the factors leading up would have caused the same in v2.
In v2.1 there was a supply cap among other things . Different protocols.
But you say that liquidity between v2.1 and v3 are considered shared? Really? By who?
You had to wait months to get an entry into v2.1.
All your post contains are ‘‘considerations’’ that you claim are widely known, but are in fact your own opinions which you present as widely known facts. Also you use retrospective guessing about what would have happened which is also impossible to know.
Talking about uncertain things in retrospect that we have no way of knowing and some personal thoughts you generalize.
I understand why some Bancor devs are angry at users who stayed at v2.1, because these users knew better than to jump on a brand new protocol. Now these gentlemen like Linksemper are angry that v2.1 users called out the risks and stood still rather than believing the team without questioning. And now that these v2.1 users are proved right, it must be hard to digest for some guys like Linksemper.
But this does not change the fact that right thing to do is to let them withdraw without robbing them, and living and learning from our mistakes instead of using our position of power to torment people who were smarter than us.
I’ve been a user and LP in bancor for 1.5+ years. I made the active decision to stay in V2.1 with 90+% of my funds because I wanted to avoid any unnecessary risks. In hindsight, I should have withdrawn all my funds before the launch of V3, but at that point i did not know the team would (or even could) freeze the V2.1 pools and rob us of that possibility. I use the word ‘rob’, because that is what it feels like when an update like this is pushed through on a protocol that is supposed to be ‘decentalized’ and ‘immutable’ without any prior discussion, communication or warning. If a warning for the forced migration would have been given prior to the act EVERY sensible V2.1 LP would have withdrawn funds. Saying the same would have happend in V2.1 pools as in V3 is not true as it simply did not happen.
I will not upgrade to V3 and lose half my deposit as a punishment for me being cautious. This is a significant amount of money for me. I don’t really care about the fees earned, or BNT rewards; I will happily give those up to help any V3 victims. But allow me to simply withdraw my V2.1 deposit.
I was actually also in the WBTC pool for over 1 year. Had been trying to withdraw from the v2.1 pool a significant amount. However, after the ILP announcement, it was not possible to withdraw without migrating to v3. So many v2.1 LPs (including myself) ended up doing the migration, though never withdrew after seeing the large loss upon withdrawal.
Since the official announcement was made by Bancor team and on the Bancor website that v2.1 → v3 migration is required before withdrawal, the most reasonable solutions I see are:
a) Require v2.1 and B3 liquidity to be shared
b) Separate v2.1 and B3 liquidity. But allow B3 users who migrated to B3 AFTER the forced v2.1 → v3 to have a path to migrate back from B3 → v2.1. (this does not apply to people who migrated before the forced v2.1 → v3 requirement)
This is, in essence, what a migration to B3 is. There shouldn’t be any B2.1 liquidity and many of the B2.1 pools are in surplus. We should be rolling that surplus forward to B3.
I am not talking about V3 in itself; I know this was discussed in much detail. I am specifically talking about disabling withdrawls on V2.1 and forcing users to migrate to V3. I’ve just re-read the part of BIP15 on the migration and cannot find anything on that. That action came as a total suprise for me (and I guess many other users).
