Vote FOR to grant the DAO mult-sig signers the authority to migrate the entire v2.1 surplus to v3
Vote AGAINST to take no action.
Summary
The purpose of this proposal is to come to a final resolution to v2.1/3 migration and surplus discussion that has been ongoing for over 110 days. This topic has been extensively discussed and the proposal is in alignment with what seems to be the community consensus for a path to resolution.
The previous discussions are linked below for ease of reference:
This proposal is seeking to leave everything as it stands right now with the exception of migrating the entirety of the v2.1 surplus to v3 for all pools that have a surplus in place. Similar to now, v2.1 LPs will have to migrate to v3 and withdraw from v3 if they are looking to exit from the protocol (no change to the existing user flow). From time to time, more surplus might build up in v2.1 and the community can choose to migrate that as needed.
This proposal is NOT seeking to forcefully migrate v2.1 LPs. This proposals is NOT seeking to turn the BNT printer back online.
Conclusion
Coming to a resolution on the 2.1/3 migration debate is a critical step to alleviating the v3 deficit. This proposal will allow the DAO to focus all resources on further improvements to v3 and the new v4 protocol which will soon be shared. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to coming to a solution.
Please provide figures of total surplus migration of v2.1 surplus pools and their impact on v3 deficits. In addition I think it should be known how much of the v2.1 surplus is owned by existing 2.1 LPs, since this is a forced migration of their contribution to that surplus. Without any information this proposal does not give the community much to chew on.
One thing we do seem to agree on is keeping migrations open if the surplus is moved without the inclusion of V2.1 withdrawals. If surplus migration occurs separately from a withdrawal vote, then V2.1 to V3 migrations must remain open. If there is no path to exit for V2.1 (surplus moves, migrations closed, withdrawals closed) this is seizure of user funds.
with v2.1 withdrawals permanently disabled, how would any v2.1 LP be able to exit the protocol without migrating?
If the only way to exit the protocol was through a migration, do you see a conflict with what you stated in earlier about “not forcefully migrating”?
I see no issues with this as everyone is operating under the same conditions that all LPs have been operating since the emergency action went into effect (which the DAO has ratified). I personally don’t think that we can ever reopen withdrawals in v2.1 now as some v3 LPs will think this is unfair if they had a better IL profile and can no longer go back. To that extent, treating v2.1 and v3 as a single protocol without making distinction about being a v2.1 or v3 LP is a fair approach for everyone (i.e. everyone has the same deficit profile based on the current v3 pool deficit). This means that any surplus belongs to both v2.1 and v3 LPs.
There are no accurate up to date numbers as this is changing all the time and the last numbers posted are months old by now. This proposal calls for any surplus that exist in v2.1 to move to v3 as I am not making a distinction between that which belongs to v2.1 LPs vs. v3 LPs. Any and all surplus belongs to all LPs of the protocol for that pool as I treat all LPs in the protocol as one and the same without making a distinction across versions.
Migrations should always remain open and any v2.1 LPs would have to migrate to v3 to withdraw from the protocol (the same rules that everyone has operated under). No one is seizing your funds and any loss due to deficit is an unfortunate accident due to insurance mechanism being disabled.
You cannot just choose to “treat all LPs in the protocol as one and the same without making a distinction across versions” when the protocol itself doesn’t do so. Before the crisis, v2.1 LPs were subject to much more stringent requirements from the protocol, and since the recovery efforts began, v2.1 LPs have been subject to very different conditions in terms of both what they can do with their funds, and how their fees are utilised, so that argument is just a fallacy.
This proposal ACTIVELY SEEKS to forcefully migrate v2.1 LPs. By forcing v2.1 users to migrate to v3 if they ever want their assets back. I think this proposal is not serious enough to merit any consideration unless it allows v2.1 users to withdraw with their own IL profiles. Because they OPTED to stay in v2.1.
This is one of the most insane comments I have ever read on this forum. So just because v3 users might be angry, let’s force v2.1 users to migrate to v3 if they ever want to withdraw or hold their assets hostage forever?
Dude, if your protocol made the mistake of socializing IL in v3, you should not make your v3 users happy at the expense of v2.1 users. Not to mention that moving protocol-owned liquidity will already help v3 users, so allowing v2 withdrawal at the same time is the best strategy that can make all v2 and v3 users happy at the same time.
I think this proposal is unethical and an illegal proposal. I call on the mods to delete this proposal which only plants seeds of discord and factionalism and nothing more.
It is the same conditions that all LPs have had, even those that migrated to v3 from v2.1. No one is holding v2.1 LPs hostage, many that have migrated and left the protocol all had to migrate as well.
It is not about making v2.1 LPs happy or v3 LPs happy. It is about making it fair for all LPs by making sure that no one gets off with more or less.
Ah yes, so v2.1 LPs have the same conditions as v3 LPs by simply not being v2.1 LPs and switching to a fundamentally different protocol design than the one they willingly signed up for, under threat of fund seizure.
I just looked at my staking portfolio on V3 and noticed that both my positions have due to deficit remarks, what does this mean, I also cannot withdraw anything, please help?
Really? Why even state this when everyone knows it is the obvious truth. This proposal does not warrant serious consideration and frankly I’m surprised it hasn’t been removed. I am once again left speechless by the schemes that are tolerated within a DeFi community