Proposal: 100% of all fees earned from Carbon to Repair Bancor Deficit

#2 is definitely preferable, because it gives specific, actionable requirements to implement. “towards repairing the deficit” is comparatively vague, and just runs the risk of wasting months in discourse debates and potentially being told “yeah, that’s not viable”, as was the case with fee optimisation chat earlier in the ILP crisis.

As far as the longer-term idea of future fees going only towards BNT stakers, I would strongly discourage and disagree with that, since throughout the whole ILP debacle, they have been the ones least affected, whereas TKN LPs have suffered across numerous metrics. BNT stakers will directly benefit from the buy+burn mechanic quicker than TKN LPs (immediate price appreciation vs much more gradual deficit reduction), and over a more prolonged period (since BNT appreciation should be quite constant, whilst varying levels of deficit in TKN pools means some TKN LPs will continue to suffer deficits for much longer times than others). They will also have BNT featured (if I’m not mistaken) as the governance token for Carbon, so that’s plenty of benefits already, especially compared to the comparatively lower suffering/fewer legitimate grievances through this whole episode.

  • BNT LPs suffering/grievances = “our token lost major value during a bear market when everything else also lost value, specifically because the Bancor protocol fundamentally failed, but we can still withdraw everything we put in whenever we want”.
  • TKN LPs suffering/grievances = “our token also lost major value during a bear market due to general market forces AND the promises of ILP (the primary reason to LP at Bancor) were betrayed at no notice, a few days after public guarantee of safety AND v2 LPs were wilfully and purposely kept in the dark on their positions AND migration was required to withdraw, leaving any v2s clueless as to how much they were sacrificing to withdraw AND many of us had other people’s IL forced on us AND we have had prolonged massive opportunity cost of either taking huge IL haircuts (which the protocol specifically claimed it was the best at preventing) or being unable to use any of our funds while we hope Bancor contributors can fix the mess”.

If anything, future post-deficit (if that ever happens) Carbon fees should go towards snapshotted v2 & v3 TKN LPs, taking fees in TKN, ETH, or USDC (easiest to collect in the latter two as a generalised pool) to airdrop and make up for all the time that LPs sacrificed all/the vast majority of their fees to the protocol in an attempt to stem the bleeding of the deficit. Bancor contributors have essentially abandoned development on v3 anyway, so there’s less chance than ever of reasonable fees being earned there in future, especially with Bancor themselves promoting Carbon as a better design than existing AMM models. Bancor needs to repay TKN LPs for the sacrifices they made throughout this whole process, not further reward BNT LPs who had a much easier ride.

1 Like

good points and I agree with the majority of what you’re saying above… clarity from the beginning is essential… carbon should right from the get-go buy and burn BNT tokens… If other methods arise that may be more favorable, we can then open the discussions…vote… and switch to the new proposed method.

I’ll push this forward to vote in the next 12 hours or so

I also think that something additional should be done for all those who kept their funds in bancor since this whole mess started.

But I do also feel that something should be done later to that further incentivises people to purchase and hold the BNT token. Fees from carbon and bancor constantly going towards buying BNT will gradually help, but IMO, if the crypto community at large were given a better reason to buy and hold the BNT token, then that alone could strengthen BNT to a much greater degree than simply purchasing bnt with fees alone. Im not stuck on the idea of carbons fees going to BNT stakers etc… but I am firm on my beliefs that we need to give BNT some sort of additional utility that will increase its desirability.


live on snapshot - Snapshot

1 Like

umm… havn’t we had multiple gigantic burns of BNT happen with no tangible effect on the deficit? There was up to one million burned a few months back and there is no noticable spike in BNT price or defecit values if I’m not mistaken. Why not just use it to buy the TKNs people actually want ?

Am I the only one that is not convinced with all these burning narratives ? What have they done so far… really nothing at all. There is less BNT, but also people do not WANT BNT right now. So having less does not help the situation. There is no demand for it.

People do however want their TKNS that they deposited… It would not be difficult to go through one pool at a time in deficit and use the fees to buy those TKNs. Look at when the renBTC was used to buy BNT on dec 18… it immediately went back into a declining pattern.


the coins were bought over time prior to the burn, so on the burn event itself, it had no effect on price. Had the contributors marketed that event a little more, then perhaps BNT could have risen in price from public speculation, but the burn event itself would still have had no effect.

I am on board with you 100% that the BNT token needs something more than just simple buy and burns. If the BNT token itself appreciates in price from other factors then that will improve / remove the deficit. If organic growth ( people buying and holding the token ) picks up, and the tokens price appreciates… then problem solved

With BNTs current state, there is little to no reason for anyone to buy it. I have been very vocal about this issue and I strongly feel that the community here should do something about this.

With using carbons fees to buy TKNs and place them in the pools… I in fact included this idea in the post… but there are issues that come along with it… such as… which TKNs get bought first // who gets saved first // last ?? I for one am in probably the hardest hit pool… wbtc… and most of my net worth is tied up in there… so I understand where you’re coming from

What we need to do as a community at large is figure out… how to make BNT price go up… if you can figure that out… then you solve everyones problem all at the same time

When carbon gets released… it should accumulate fees exponentially faster than bancor… and that is why this solution should work

however… I, like yourself, do not feel that buying and burning BNT will be the best way moving forward POST deficit recovery

There are many examples out there today… GMX…Gains… etc… where profits from trades are distributed to holders of the token. This creates a community of constant users… as well as incentivises new people to purchase and hold / stake the token. If we apply this to the BNT token… then that will give BNT the much needed boost to organic growth.

Buying and burning BNT will likely not have nearly the same positive price effect as a wave of new holders buying and staking the BNT token.

I will create a new thread to open the discussions on this topic, so I hope that you’ll join me there and give your input on new ideas on how carbons fees can be uses POST deficit recovery


The buying helps reduce the deficit.

The burning makes sure that this effect is not reversed.

1 Like

Not if no one else wants to buy the damn token… Look on coinmarketcap… we are literally number 300+ in 30d trading volume…While 54% of total BNT is already held by the protocol itself!

It does nothing to improve public sentiment or make people feel better about the deficit.

It’s funny because the only argument against my proposal is literally “which pool do we choose first/last”… That is not even a real problem. There could be a public leader board. And each ‘pay back’ get’s split up however a DAO vote decides… Maybe we vote constant 15% on ETH, 15% on wbtc… 15% on lowest pool, rest split between 5 pools. Literally an unlimited amount of creatives ways to pay all the deficit off…

And it shows direct action. People can see the deficit getting smaller instead of the “when people want BNT again the burns will have worked cause lower supply”… The problem is no one wants BNT because of the deficit. We shoudldn’t rely on BNT having demand to fix it. That’s ass backwards.

Showing direct and clear actionable steps towards closing the deficit could be extremely marketable and mend trust again. Saying a protocol will continue to buy it’s own token to save itself sounds desperate and cringy af IMO. but no one wants to hear it. they keep telling me the same echo-chamber of how buying bnt helps all pools T_T

I’ll check out your thread

Public sentiment won’t help,bnt is not a meme coin,bnt is not a pump-dump scheme.If you want numbers then this might help you:

Bancor last 24h : $3.85M volume , $14.84k Fees.
Competitor on one of the most hyped chains right now Beethoven : $1.58M volume , $944 fees.
Bancor is 6.45x more profitable.

Like foxsteven said,this burning makes sure the effect is not reversed and is permanent.We don’t need low time frame pumps,we need sustainable things.But if you want to be a clown it’s your choice.IMO try to help and create constructive threads and conversations,maybe you have a great idea,who knows,that would help.Criticism is not constructive

1 Like

criticism is constructive, and I in no way am looking for a pump.

My point is that the money can go to a more direct solution… With actionable and visible results instead of the “wait until demand comes back for BNT and the buy/burn will have worked for all pools” narrative

Bancor owes people TKNs. Why not spend fees directly on TKNs (and make DEX fees in the process)… The burn was a social experiment 5 months ago, had no results, and no one is willing to even argue against alternatives. But what do I care, I’m a small fish anyways

1 Like