Proposal: Let LPs have the option to withdraw with ILP at a 1% rate per week

Absolutely not. This is categorically wrong. False. Incorrect.

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want or wish to have at a later time. My wish, in this situation, as granted by a genie in a lamp would be to make every TKN lp whole + fees, but that is not a reality. We are not in a scenario in which we are starting from a good position. Every decision we make in this situation will leave someone feeling put-out.

My decision making process is not fueled by some desire to preserve my BNT at the cost of others.

Leaving TKN lps at a 40% loss is totally unacceptable and I refuse to take any action that doesn’t lead to the complete restoration of TKN vault balances; that is my motivation. Right now, the best thing for TKN and BNT stakers is to give the protocol - which invented dexes and has outlived tens of thousands of other crypto projects - time to make it right.

There are plenty of businesses and companies which experience times of economic turmoil and run a budget in the red. Bancor is a successful dex that is currently in such a situation and we can recover, but what (I think) this proposal will do is create a situation from which the protocol cannot recover. And so I wouldn’t vote for it.

Again I remind readers of Arable, Crown, Phuture, ShibGF, and BBS - all of which are small projects currently making use of deposits and/or the external liquidity protection contract. You say we need to attract future LPs and I agree, but I don’t think you realize that we are still getting more LPs of new projects presently.

Bancor is still the best place for new projects to bootstrap liquidity.

1 Like

well tehre will bo no army left to fight at some point. and i think the LPs are way more important fee and reputation wise than small projexts like ShibGF and such. And companies in the red exist and come out of it yes. But usually its the company in the red, not the users. And if the company fails the workers (users) usually can leave to another company and work there for the same money. Here we cant, if it fails we get nothing. Are the rest of LPs willing to take the risk with no kind of security? I highly doubt that.

Whats way more important now, before we jsut turn in circles here. Can anyone in charge get us some realistic numbers simulated with Parameters like: Current fees, estimated fees in the future, estimated BNT mintin through withdrawal. It just has to be adjusted → the withdrawal will get less and less over time with more fees generated → circle effect → more people stay → more fees again…and of course to see the other picture a rough estimation how much revenue will be loss by liquidity leaving with the haircut becasue the deficit % gets too high in their pool

I would do it but i simply dont know how and i would make many mistakes.
Im certain we can find some kind of agreement, which is ok for every party involved. (For now the only completely negativ opinion to this proposal is zeno, if there are other voices i would like to hear their reasoning) It would save bancors face for sure.
Alternatively big mike had a good idea. I think yudi is on it already

Im out. you win zeno. cant watch this anymore. you should shame yourself


Staying is beneficial to both you and the protocol as it helps both parties get what they need: token vault balances restored to parity. So I try to do everything I can - without duress - to get TKN lps and BNT LPs aligned in a mission to restore token vault balances to parity.

It costs the protocol nothing for you to leave and you will take a 40% haircut.

I don’t want you to take haircut. I want us to work together to get token vault balances restored to parity.

You are free to leave, but I’m not gonna vote on something that pays you to go. I don’t even think I can vote on a payment plan for you to leave because I’m not sure the protocol can afford that - and I don’t want the protocol to write a check it can’t cash.

Lastly, doing the suggested takes dev time. Dev time that could be spent making more revenue earning features.

A quick reminder that this proposal is discussing the option to withdraw with ILP at a 1% rate per week. Any discussions outside of this topic should not be in this thread. There are rules in place for discourse:

and post should be driving the conversation forward.

1 Like

Temporarily closing this thread for now. Will reopen in ~24 hours.

This topic was automatically opened after 23 hours.

tbh the lack of confidence of TKN LP will only make the deficit worse. without confidence there will be no new deposit or buyer of BNT, hence no means to continuously generating fees. There is some merits in the proposal, if the TKN LP are assured they can get the principles back in 2 years, many long term holders would choose to stay in the protocol and provide the liquidity to generate fees. we could potentially see some new LPs.


Agreed. We need some kind of path forward, a perspective giving us hope. We can’t pretend like we just have time to develop new features for the next months and can just regain trust afterwards.

So, as I have tried to really digest the pros/cons of such a plan…my mind keeps going back to the premise of the proposal…which is to instill trust via promise to withdrawal at a 1% rate. The argument is that by putting together a throttled exit plan, people will have more confidence in the protocol and stay. If I am over simplifying, please let me know. But I believe that is the heart of this.

Regardless of the plan, it is the ultimate goal that seems to be unstated, but inferred…“people will have confidence and stay if you give them the ability to leave slowly over time.” that I believe is where the friction comes.

I don’t believe that confidence which will lead to people staying is going to come from outlining a smooth exit strategy. I am not opposed to any exit strategy for anyone who wants to leave, it just can’t put the protocol back into a state of decline or else such a proposal works against a recovery. With that said. Confidence will only come from people seeing a promising way in which more liquidity, fees and volume will come to the protocol. Furthermore, I would argue that any promise of a specific plan would have any merit unless such a plan forward was outlined and embraced by the community.

At the heart of it, I believe this would ultimate work against the protocol’s recovery process, even if only at a much lower rate than other plans seen.

1 Like

The protocol is in a state of decline right now. How much TVL leaves the protocol daily? People are losing hope because from a LPs point of view absolutely nothing had been done for 2 months.

1 Like

Every single time ILP was paid out, it put the protocol in a decline for the amount that was paid out. It is simply impossible to pay people your due without actually paying it. Whether it comes from swaps as fee or goes out of your liquidity by thinning it.

Also almost all of the past community are raging and attacking Bancor on all possible avenues. Blocking them or censoring them will not remove their posts from the internet and they have some truth to their claims in that the real IL value if calculated by dividing the initial stake by two would be much lower than the current haircut. At least if you allow some kind of reimbursement, be it 1 percent per day or 1 percent per week, it will actually make the constant attacks stop.

Also paying them ILP in a bear market is a much better idea than paying them in a bull market. The protocol is already in decline. Bancor lost a big amount of credibility by disabling ILP and it is one of the OG protocols of ETH. So far all the strategy I see is dragging things on to have LP owners take haircut to lower the deficiency. The 1 percent ILP per day or even per week seems reasonable.

1 Like