This clearly shows a complete lack of understanding of the protocol and its mechanics. Bancor v3 did not exacerbate any mess and any issues that were present in v2.1 were also present in v3 (including any apparent deficits and surpluses across the protocol).
- No deposit limits in v3 does not mean that all tokens that are contributed to the protocol are exposed to IL or token rebalancing. The Bancor DAO voted on the pool limits as part of the v3 launch for all pools
these limits exist to determine how many tokens are made available for trading (i.e. matched with BNT). Once the BNT is exhausted, any token contributions are no longer made available for trading but they rather sit in the vault unused for now. The limits for the pools in v3 were all carried from v2.1 so there was no change there.
- Instant ILP was not quite “instant” as this carried a 7 day cool down when the printer was enabled. Furthermore, this is not an attack vector against the protocol as 7 days was a number chosen to prevent insurance abuse from occurring:
A 7-day Cool-Off Period
If an attack vector exists, either discretely or abstractly, its frequency and potential damage can be effectively nullified with the introduction of a mandatory waiting period, prior to the withdrawal of user’s funds. Compared to the current 100 day vesting period, a 7-day cool-off represents an effective drop of 93% in mandatory wait time prior to full protection. In context, the additional prudency still affords users an improved offering, without conceding any vulnerabilities to the system.
One can make the argument that without the 7 day cooldown being enabled that the entire protocol would have been REKT due to instant withdrawals in v2.1 and not having a 7 day queue to assess the situation. Lastly, it has already been mentioned previously in this thread that this is a protocol wide problem and not a v3 specific problem by a lead developer:
I suggest a complete read of BIP 15 and this entire thread before any further bold claims.