It seems there are substantial risks in taking action now, while at the same time some of the larger holders raise concerns about the way this is being managed. Rightly the following up of a vote with another vote because it doesn’t go a particular way is being raised by whales as a concern. Perhaps V3 provides a better ground to hold such discussions on how to move forward rather than be dragged into the weeds now.
From where I sit I see no reason to take on the risks now when this will require substantial work to implement that could be spent on V3. It makes more sense to discuss LM rewards in V3 in separate threads. That significant work is required to implement a change is a bug, not a feature and should be addressed in V3 discussions.
It requires 66% of the active vBNT to decide the path forward.
35% of the active vBNT can call bullshit.
This is how voting with a quorum and a threshold works. A small group of users tried to pass a disgusting and aggressive extension to rewards without regard for the health of BNT. They did not have 66% majority and they were sanity-checked by the small minority.
This is HOW DAO’s are SUPPOSED TO WORK.
The minority here won. They sent it back to the table for a re-work. They didn’t abuse anything or force anything through that others didn’t want. They simply prevented a power coup.
The ego to just propose the same thing again is mind blowing.
If no adjustments to emissions are made and a sensible plan for going forward, my vote remains STRONGLY AGAINST.
Why don’t you respond to my earlier post asking for what would be an acceptable proposal moving forward? You keep saying the same thing over and over, why not come up with a constructive plan moving forward? I do agree rewards will need to be tapered/changed on the pools, but as Nick has alluded to, new pool structure is coming soon. Why rush this “No” vote now? We need the TVL for v3 and LINK is our most liquid pool after ETH. Would duration matter?
Will vote FOR because the rejection of LM extension rejections ahead of V3’s launch benefits the few who care more about a short-term price pump for BNT over the many who care more about the long-term growth of the protocol and its reputation with other communities.
Not extending the LM rewards especially for WBTC and LINK would be a big mistake. There is no reason why tokens most people never heard of should be getting LM rewards while the important pools are not getting renewed. If you are so strongly against inflation, LM should be stopped for the whole platform, not just for the biggest pools. But yet the same wallets voting against LM in essential pools voted just a few days ago to activate LM for WOO. If it was really all about inflation concerns, they would have voted against all recent LM extensions/activations.
I am strongly in favor of this proposal and encourage all to vote for it.
If these proposals don’t pass, BNT holders who put their BNT in the biggest pools will get their BNT diluted compared to the smaller pools with active LM. People who trusted in our biggest pools will be forced to pay fees to move their BNT stacks in smaller pools with active LM, which leads to the liquidity of the most important pools getting drained.
There is no reason for such a risky and unnecessary step. It would hurt smaller holders who have only recently (re)staked their assets in the biggest pools, thinking these are the most likely to get renewed. We saw healthy growth in the last months and especially now with v3 we will have big changes anyway going forward.
To this point, watching these large wallets vote against LINK and wBTC but vote for ETH LM was interesting. I wonder, without positively identifying themselves or anything untoward like that, if one of these large wallets could explain their reasoning so we can understand them better.
Except we know who they are, it’s not like they’re trying to hide it. Vote YES for Alpha, AAVE, SNX, and Woo LM, but no to the most important pools (aside from ETH).
Changes to proposal being debated by the community (happy to gather more, please suggest below):
Is it really not possible to lower LM rewards emission for some pools?
For how long should the LM rewards run for?
What about changing the LM rewards split? I’ve read comments from 80% for BNT side to 100%.
Stablecoin pools bring additional risk to health of protocol because of IL. Is it reasonable to remove LM rewards from these pools? Especially on the TKN side?
BurnVictim, aka simp2win on twitter, aka burningm0nks and Samantha (banned) on discord, aka N (banned) on telegram, is a self-serving liar that does not have the best interests of the protocol at heart. His interest in voting down these proposals lies solely in the fact that he has been underwater for months on a large vBNT trade.
By abruptly ending LM he hopes to force LP’s that have leveraged their vBNT to buy it back in order to unstake, thus increasing buying pressure on and the price of vBNT. It is telling that he also wants to immediately push the vortex burner up to 20%, as this is the second part of his plan to quickly increase the price of vBNT for his own benefit. The fact that this will adversely affect liquidity in those pools is of no consequence to him.
This person has consistently demonstrated that he does not act in good faith. He uses multiple sockpuppets across various channels to build a false narrative and manipulate people. He uses half-truths and twisted logic to support his arguments, but conveniently ignores hard questions such as the one in these very threads, about putting forward his own proposal. This is because he does not actually care about the health of the protocol, his concern trolling simply serving as a smokescreen for his true motives.
He has previously attempted to activate LM on BNTees in order to profit from BNT inflation, an action that is completely at odds with his supposed motivation to keep inflation in check. When his idea was shot down he immediately took to social media to badmouth the devs and the community. I have no doubt that he will do the same thing if these extensions pass.
This person is not here to engage and debate with the DAO in good faith. He is here to deceive and manipulate it to achieve his own ends, at the expense of the protocol. His recent actions are nothing short of an attack on a weak DAO with poor voter engagement and should be treated as such.
This proposal has my full support for all the stated reasons that the community has provided. I am also greatly amazed by the Bancor community that has come together these past few days to rally in support of the extension for these pools.
We have seen large amounts (~4.5M so far) of vBNT being staked in the governance contract after the community was made aware of the past recent events. If anything, I expect the Bancor community to come out stronger after this is over. With Bancor V3 around the corner and community engagement at an all time high, I foresee a successful V3 launch that will be met with resounding success.
During the community call on Sunday 30th of May at 1pm UTC, a debate about the LM reward extension proposals is expected. Some suggestions to discuss:
Given that adding a multiple option proposal to snapshot would involve an update on the quorum and supermajority requirements, a fixed duration for the extensions must be chosen. The community call is a good place to debate this.
We could propose a shorter LM rewards extension duration with a compromise to debate them but this time with a longer time window before they expire again.
When can the community expect some details to be released about Bancor V3 to allow for a more informed debate on the next extension vote? If a deadline can’t be given (which is expected), what is the team’s recommendation on the extension duration?
Many community members have expressed their intent to vote against the LM extension for stablecoins. The USDC/USDT/DAI pools are naturally more expensive to the protocol because they accrue a higher IL than the rest.
These points won’t necessarily be all debated on the community call.
I strongly believe that despite the heated debate on these proposals, the Bancor Dev team should NOT be pushed to release Bancor V3 or details about it ahead of time, be it for business positioning reasons, debugging/auditing/testing reasons, or others.
The consensus on the community call and the team’s opinion was that setting the duration for 12 weeks is sensible.
This duration would also allow the DAO to direct its focus to other proposals, such as whitelisting and coinvestment quorum and supermajority requirements update as well as setting the guidelines for a delegation system.
With a long enough duration, it is a guaranteed that we will have more information on Bancor V3 to make a better decision in the next round of extension votes.
The stablecoin LM rewards extension is set to 8 weeks to keep liquidity in these pools for Bancor V3. These rewards are more controversial as the stablecoin pools incur higher IL protection costs, so the duration of the extension is shorter than 12 weeks to invite another debate sooner and independently from the rest of the pools, should the proposal pass. More information then should be available.
