#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.