10% is something, but I don’t personally see how giving back 10% gets us anywhere different. It would be the same amount of people begging and pleading to make LP’s whole for the other 90%.
Not necessarily. I’d probably withdraw some of my LP to deploy its remains ahead of the next bull in hopes of making it back and then some. If we could reduce the 50%+ haircut in the big LPs like wBTC, LINK and ETH by 10% that would be something. Sure, some LPs may keep kicking and screaming, but the more offramps we could provide them, the better. Right now LPs have one option - max pain while the POL purchases shrink BNT float. Instead, let’s give LPs some options.
If we could get some LPs to withdraw voluntarily it would bring us one step closer to closure. Recovering $0.55 on the dollar is better than only recovering $0.50.
2 Likes
As expected, not a single of the dozens of paid contributors even responds. It’s pure disprespect and at this point I am convinced most of them dont even care about us getting our money back as long as they can continue receiving the foundation’s juicy paychecks. Shame on you.
2 Likes
Im care, just very busy 
1 Like
Any reason other than contributors not liking it that it doesn’t get pushed to Snapshot?
1 Like
@glenn @yudi @foxsteven @mbr It is not acceptable that you are ignoring this proposal. I thought this was supposed to be an DAO? Will you ignore it until we have no POL left?
1 Like
I am personally opposed to reenabling liquidity protection in any way shape or form ever again as this was the exact reason for how we ended in a negative feedback loop almost two years ago. This led to massive amounts of BNT being minted and the deficit to grow across v2.1 and v3 as those BNTs were used to swap for TKN. If this happens again, the vast majority pools will end up with large amounts of worthless BNT and little to no TKNs left (i.e. 99.99999% deficit).
On the other hand, I think a lot of progress has been made since then when it comes to reigning in minting of BNT and trying to heal the deficit by utilizing protocol fees from Bancor v2.1, Bancor v3, Carbon, and the Arb Fast Lane. For this reason, I do not support this proposal or any similar proposals that try to enable BNT minting again.
3 Likes
Thanks for explaining your position, at least someone finally responds. I already thought the contributors just completely stopped caring about governance at this point.
I don’t agree, I think the minting itself wasn’t the problem, If the 100 day withdrawal period from 2.1 would have been kept in place, this wouldn’t have happened. Also it doesn’t have to be minting, it could be BNT bought with fees and POL as we discussed in the most recent posts.
On the other hand, I think a lot of progress has been made since then when it comes to reigning in minting of BNT and trying to heal the deficit by utilizing protocol fees
Please stop with these bad faith arguments. In fact, we are at an all time high deficit percentage and you know it. Sure a bunch of small pools have been closed but the biggest pools never have been worse than right now, as you can see on dune dashboard. What makes you think changing nothing will resolve the deficit if it only got worse after 1.5 years of “progress”?
The people you promised 100% ILP are facing the most brutal impermanent loss in the industry with -63% ETH, 61% WBTC and 43% LINK and I think enabling ILP in some form again is a (moral) obligation. Refusing to ever enable it again and even refusing to push proposals asking for it is a slap in the face of Bancor LP’s.
For this reason, I do not support this proposal or any similar proposals that try to enable BNT minting again.
Fine, but you are not the DAO and your personal opinion doesn’t give you the right to refuse pushing this proposal to snapshot. If you and your friends decide which proposals will get voted on and which don’t, this isn’t a DAO at all.
4 Likes
Being against allowing LPs to recover 1% ILP on their deposits per week is actively hostile to LPs, and demonstrates a complete lack of faith in Bancor’s ability to handle any outflows whatsoever–or at least it presumes it’s okay for the foundation to pay contributors in BNT which instantly gets sent to Coinbase for market sells, but not okay for LPs to receive and dispose of any BNT at all?
Again, this proposal outlines a measured and gradual approach, rather than the “instant 100% ILP, market absolutely flooded with BNT to the point of death spiral!” which you appear to be attempting to present it as. If followed through, this proposal is one which could have healed all LPs (that actively chose to consistently withdraw) or brought them to acceptable haircuts for full withdrawals (and thus BNT burning) by now, compared to when this proposal was initially made.
If you honestly mean to tell us that Carbon’s sub-$1k monthly fees, and around $275,000 a year from the fast lane bot (not withstanding callers selling off BNT rewards) is “a lot of progress” towards a deficit that currently stands at nearly $42m, then once again, your attitude appears totally dismissive and cavalier towards LPs. We’ve seen the effect that the supply reduction has had on the deficit thus far; and we know that it’s apparently taboo for Bancor to market it in any way shape or form, so it’s effectively occurring in silence.
If supply reduction were really the magic bullet towards deficit reduction, then we would all be well served for the foundation to burn their BNT stash–they told LPs that they practiced prudent financial management and converted most of their funds to cash and stablecoins, so surely it (as a wise and trusted body that doesn’t require any transparency whatsoever) didn’t make an FTX-esque error of holding too much of their balance sheet in their own token, necessitating it to be the only means of paying contributors.
Additionally, supply reduction hasn’t helped BNT outperform significant pools, look at the chart and you’ll see the only thing that had a real effect on closing pools was a random pump and dump;
as VictimBurner points out, remaining LPs are in a WORSE position now for having trusted team-led ideas and efforts for over a year and a half. Considering general market momentum and upcoming catalysts (Bitcoin halving, potential Ether ETF), it appears bizarre that a minute and gradual minting process would apparently cripple the protocol, and is framed as calamitous by contributors, considering when all the internal ideas have failed to improve deficit on a protocol-wide level.
4 Likes
Right now Carbon makes $100 in fees per day and won’t be able to solve the deficit by multiple orders of magnitude. Even adding the fast lane we are topping $300k of annual fees vs a deficit of USD38m.
Given the supply dynamics of ETH and BTC, it is pretty clear at this stage that the deficit will keep growing on the main pools.
The two ways to solve this are:
- reducing the overall supply in Bancor V2/V3
- increasing fees in Carbon by increasing TVL in Carbon
One of the easiest ways to think about it is “how to incentivize V2/V3 LPs to migrate to Carbon and stay on Carbon”?
The design I am thinking about is the following:
- Offer the ability for V2/V3 LPs to migrate their position into a single asset position in Carbon for the pair DAI/token, locked for 90days [Note: the user will have to create a range above the current market price so that it’s single asset position]
- Those locked positions get a 80%APY for 90 days, paid in BNT
- Assuming ALL LPs (i.e. USD31m in TKN) decide to migrate, that would mean:
a) USD6m in new mint of BNT and USD31m of BNT burnt, i.e. net burn of circa 30m BNT
b) Deficit fully solved
c) USD31m of TVL moving to Carbon for at least 90 days, generating more fees
The truth is probably only part of this USD31m TVL will migrate, but every $ that migrates is a win for the protocol (less BNT in circulation, more TVL in Carbon for at least 90 days), and for the LPs that decide to leave that’s a way to get 20% net return before getting out and potentially generating more fees with Carbon.
Time is against us as team/contributors are paid in BNT while Carbon doesn’t generate fees, cratering even more BNT/token price. We need to take action to get more TVL on Carbon.
3 Likes
Can only agree with Tony and ImshermanentLoss. Literally worst value in btc since July 2023 and you are seriously talking about progress. How about pushing proposals and finally doing the job you earn so many BNT for instead of downplaying this desaster you and your team brought us in?
Also about the -99% death spiral you are worried about. In v2.1 times Bancor team members were telling us supply doesn’t matter but now the same people are suddenly saying even a 1%ILP would cause a death spiral. This is so dishonest.
2 Likes
@glenn any view on the proposal above to migrate? I really thing it would bring a positive change and help accelerate deficit reduction.
I know ETH Denver is great and team busy, but LPs getting rekt by the day so timing matters 
I recommend putting this proposal in its own thread as this thread was originally for a proposal from August 2022. It is better for the community to provide their thoughts and responses there.
What about this proposal and @ImshermanentLoss idea to revisit the idea? It was opposed and ignored by contributors back than and seems it is getting the same treatment again.
people, glad to see some movement here. Discussion at least, but could lead to something positive.
1 Like
Done. New governance proposal has been transfered here: Implement a migration from Bancor to Carbon - #6 by Tony
2 Likes
Thank you, I see some activity there already.
What about this proposal and @ImshermanentLoss idea to revisit the idea? It was opposed and ignored by contributors back than and seems it is getting the same treatment again.
I still think a buy out over time is an idea worth exploring.
2 Likes