New proposal to whitelist UBT Unibright

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]

TL;DR

> 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.

Co-Investment Limit

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!

1 Like

Looks good to me UBT is a good project thanks for the proposal ! I recommend also adding a co-investment. Going by the Uniswap Liquidity I’d recommend either a 250k initial co-investment to grow the initial pool or 500k to match the Uni liquidity.

2 Likes

Great feedback, sure can do that.

2 Likes

Quickswap has about $2m of liquidity as well

1 Like

I wrote the original proposal, I have a new one ready to go with more details based on feedback

2 Likes

Perfect! Thank you. Where can we find it?

1 Like
1 Like

This is what I had ready to post for when to try again for whitelisting:

NEW Proposal to Whitelist Unibright (UBT) with a 250K BNT Co-Investment Limit

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.

Co-Investment Limit

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.

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!

2 Likes

This is great! Thanks for your help! Is it fine with you if i change my concept and write your text in it? Or how do you want to proceed further?

1 Like

Yeah sure, update it. I def want it to happen

3 Likes

Great follow up Dan.

1 Like

This might get through the DAO easier if we drop the BNT co-investment. The last time this went up for vote it had a 200K co-investment. Based on previous proposals that have failed with a co-investment, it seems like some of them went on to past after resubmitting without a co-investment. We can always separately propose a co-investment increase if the whitelisting proposal passes (quorum is much lower after that) and the community might have a more favorable view if the pool is able to build some liquidity naturally without a co-investment.

With that said, I supported this proposal last time and will support it again.

3 Likes

I agree.
In general, the DAO is cautious with its co-investment limits. Since the lat vote was not successful, I would suggest to drop the co-investment limit, then try to increase it later, after we have had an opportunity to observe it. The quorum requirement is a lot lower to increase the minting limit, so you are making it a lot easier on yourself by doing it in stages.

I suggest this proposal shoots for the 10th May for Snapshot.

Please add this text to the top of the post:

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.

1 Like

Thank you all for the replies. I agree we need to make the proposal small so it’s much more likely to pass the vote. I rather do this step by step. That said this proposal will be done without the co investment and after this proposal has been passed i will created a new proposal for the co investment. any other feedback is much appreciated! Thank you all

2 Likes

Last time there was a vote on UBT whitelisting nothing passed quorum unless 2 whales voted it through. Could have been 10k and it would not have made a difference.

Unless I am mistaken. Would be great to hear from actual people who chose not vote as to why they did not vote. Rather than speculate. Because I do not agree with the idea that the co-investment limit was the issue.

Majority voted in favour of the last proposal.

2 Likes

I do think the Co-Investment played a role. From a Whitelisting perspective there’s really no concerns or drawbacks to be had. Co-Investments do have to have economic meaning behind them, i think i small co-invest is generally needed on all whitelisted pools to kickstart it’s liquidity but minting BNT to match actually dampens price as I understood from the April update, which is why some are hesitant to vote FOR. We have more than a few pools that are actually whitelisted but don’t have IL protection activated because no-one has bootstrapped the pool, this is a major problem imo. I’d recommend lowering the co-invest to 100k and on an unrelated matter I think we should try to do a multi-pool co-investment to bootstrap already whitelisted pools or in the future make a small co-investment part of whitelisting like a simple 5k to kick off the pools.

1 Like

Why should a UBT holder deposit anything to Bancor when there is no IL protection?

1 Like

What I meant about the whitelisted pools is different, I mean that pools like UMA and CRV are already whitelisted from the initial whitelist at launch but have no impermanent loss insurance because the pool hasn’t been bootstrapped with BNT. so when people come to Bancor it looks as if they aren’t whitelisted when in reality they are, they just need to be upgraded. But I do agree with a co-investment on UBT, just think it should be at 100k so it’s more likely to pass a vote. Although as I mentioned in the previous UBT proposal 200k is the more appropriate number.

1 Like

There is $6m on uniswap and $2.25m on quickswap. And quickswap is paying out LM rewards.

Uniswap
https://info.uniswap.org/pair/0xb27de0ba2abfbfdf15667a939f041b52118af5ba

Quickswap
https://info.quickswap.exchange/token/0x7fbc10850cae055b27039af31bd258430e714c62

1 Like