This proposal is due to appear on Snapshot on 10th May, 12:00 pm UTC. Make sure to stake your vBNT for voting before this date and time to participate in the DAO decision.
New proposal to Whitelist Unibright (UBT)
Contract address: 0x8400d94a5cb0fa0d041a3788e395285d61c9ee5e
Project Websites: [https://Unibright.io]
> Activate single-sided exposure and IL protection for UBT
**>With Default 20,000 BNT Co-Investment
The previous proposal that includes extensive details on what the Unibright Token is and it’s utility can be found here. The vote achieved a 58.5% vote for whitelisting, but unfortunately did not manage to attract enough votes for quorum. The Unibright community was disappointed with this outcome, and received the following feedback:
- 1m Co-investment Limit was too high (even though it was lowered to 200K for the actual vote)
- While the information included in the proposal was extensive, it did not focus specifically on why whitelisting would be beneficial for BNT token holders.
- The Unibright Community need to engage with the larger vBNT holders if the proposal is to pass quorum
So, for this new proposal I will focus specifically on these aspects, rather than just repeating the previous one. It is really important that voters highlight any concerns or unseen issues so that they can be addressed before the votes goes live, because that is what the discussion forum is for – to iron out anything before the vote goes live.
200K BNT at the time of writing is approximately $1.4m. Unibright is currently listed on two other Liquidty Pool exchanges. Uniswap has grown to $6.1m ($3.05m UBT) and has been listed there for well over a year now. More recently, UBT was added to Quickswap and within the first week it attracted nearly $2m of liquidity ($1M UBT). The value of UBT on Quickswap has since reduced, primarily due to people not wanting to be exposed to Impermanent loss.
There is definitely demand from the UBT community to partake in a BNT pool, and with a relatively low Co-Investment Limit, the pool should reach $1.4m relatively quickly and easily. that said the BNT co investment will be proposed in a different proposal so that this proposal is much more likely to pass the vote. we need to do this step by step and make it so small as possible.
Why Whitelisting is Beneficial for BNT Holders
There is already proven demand from UBT traders and investors for exchanges like Bancor. The APY for Uniswap pool typically ranges from 40-60% APY, which show that there is a consistently high amount of volume and that it is providing a good return for Liquidity providers. Similarly, Uniswap represents a high percentage of the “real” volume. The community is well aware of the non-custodial benefits a DEX offers. With Bancor’s integration with aggregators like 1inch and Paraswap, a move for traders and arbitrageurs to Bancor will be seamless and would easily take a large slice of fees from Uniswap.
The trading volume is likely to improve significantly over the coming months as both the “Baseledger” and “Baseliine-as-a-Service” tokenomics see full adoption. There are two key parts to the tokenomics that will increase volume (and therefore fees):
UBT is the Gas for Enterprise Blockchain - Clients pay fiat to Provide Payments who purchase UBT on the open market from any of the exchanges where UBT is listed. If UBT is whitelisted for Bancor, there is no reason why they would not make use of Bancor. Of the initial purchase of UBT from exchanges, 50% is locked a licence fee, and 50% is used and rebought on the open market throughout the duration of the contract. This means that there are one off lump sums purchased for the initial lock, but then also there is continued buy and sell volume created by the use of UBT as a payment token for gas. This means each new client is going to be bringing more and more volume for the token (and therefore fees)
UBT is the native token for Baseledger – The purpose built blockchain for Baselining. This enterprise focused blockchain is currently being built and will involve constant buy pressure from clients, and also some sell pressure from node operators looking to cover running costs. And all this buy and sell pressure will occur through the open markets, on exchanges like Bancor (as long as it is whitelisted!). Clients pay a flat fee in fiat which is then converted on the open market into UBT tokens, that is then used to pay node operators and stakers for providing consensus. These nodes and stakers will then need to either restake or sell their rewards, again on the open market (on exchanges like Bancor, if it is whitelisted!).
So, in summary, there is currently good volume for the UBT token on Uniswap and it is generating good fees for Liquidity providers on Uniswap, but over time there are more mechanisms in the not too distant future that will come in to play that will push the trading volumes up significantly.
Engaging more with the Voters (especially the larger ones!)
Firstly, thank you to every voter who took the time to vote on the proposal, who asked questions and supported the proposal in any shape and form. The Unibright community tweeted and shared the proposal everywhere we could, answered questions, talked about the vote and tried to get as many votes as we could. But the biggest barrier was clearly getting enough votes to pass quorum. Feedback we received was positive, and I don’t remember seeing anything negative other than the initial co-investment limit was too high. And this was acted on.
So, I guess our question is why did only 12.1% of eligible voters vote for/against the proposal? When it is a gasless vote this is surprising. What can we do? Who should we talk to? There are clearly some big voters out there who passed on the chance to vote and it would be great to try and understand why this was the case, and what can be done to persuade you to vote or engage with this proposal.
This proposal is open to any and all suggestions, so please do give any feedback that you can. Positive or negative, any is appreciated!