everyone currently has the option to leave. simply just not on the terms that they want. everyone currently feels this way
1 Like
It’s not about “what they want”, it’s about what has been agreed upon before this happened.
The fact that ILP was turned off breaking certain expectations, does not justify ignoring other agreements made.
If this is how you feel, why not just generalize ALL current deficits so all tokens have the same? “It’s a Bancor issue”, no? It’s very flawed logic.
3 Likes
Could you at least acknowledge your misconception on Yudi’s claim:
“Also remember that v3 deficit was mostly a result from v2.1 migrations.”
not being the same as your claim of
“The people who migrated over to v3 previously have aided & contributed towards the existing surplus in v2 from their previous LP positions”.
It’s clear misinformation in regards to the subject of the effects of reopening V2.1 withdraws and could greatly affect this discussion. Confirmation from @yudi would be appreciated
V2.1 surpluses/deficits were created by the price action of tkns vs BNT during V2.1, and nothing else. Migrations had no effect on increasing or maintaining token depositors positions in V2.1, and the existing surpluses should indeed benefit V3, and with that those that migrated and left the surplus behind. However, the idea that direct withdraws from v2.1 would impact the surplus is false.
Allowing people to withdraw with the current V2.1 surplus/deficit does not affect surpluses eventually being transferred to V3 and does not harm Bancor. It just doesn’t aid it either, and there is no grounds on which to demand that, as V2.1 depositors were informed they would have the right to opt out of V3.
1 Like
You are trying to get the v2.1 LPs to withdraw on the terms that you want.
The more rational argument is that the v2.1 LPs withdraw on the terms that were already stated.
B3 LPs are already getting the benefits of v2.1 surplus. To ask that the v2.1 LPs also partake in shared haircuts is completely self-interest on behalf of the B3 LPs and unnecessary and completely immoral and illegal
2 Likes
Again this should not go to a vote. V2.1 LPs need to have the option to withdraw under v2.1 terms. To force migrate v2.1 LPs and force them to take haircuts will result in litigation. Theres is simply no excuse to do it. Unlike the BNT printer emergency shut off, this situation does not involve a death spiral emergency. It is simply self-interested B3 LPs who want less of a loss.
3 Likes
Just for clarity re. the docs - that paragraph refers to v1/v2.1 pool (converter) owners, that can choose whether to upgrade to a new version that’s available or not.
If the owner chooses to upgrade, the upgrade is done for all LPs in the pool.
1 Like
Another clarification - the code that was added to v2.1 actually does the following -
- liquidate all protocol owned pool tokens
- burn the BNT side
- move the TKN side to v3 master vault
If you recall, when LPs deposited TKN in v2.1, half the pool tokens went to them (the amount was set in their position) and the other half went to the protocol, for providing the BNT.
So the implementation above refers to the pool tokens that the protocol received.
The protocol doesn’t have any idea about surplus/deficit re. in that regard.
The simple answer is that there’s no clear objective way to look at it.
When BNT distribution was on, the surplus was always protocol owned (users never actually received part of the surplus on their withdrawals).
Once BNT distribution was turned off, the terms have changed. What does that mean? Highly subjective.
When you say “B3 LPs are already getting the benefits of v2.1 surplus” - what do you mean?
I’m explaining what the code there does. v2.1 contracts = v1/v2.1 pools (the pools are exactly the same contracts).
1 Like
As someone with a few V2.1 LP positions i can agree with this plan. I never opted-in to V3; I purposefully remained in V2.1 to minimise my risks (just as i did with my Uniswap V2 prositions when V3 came out). I do however recognise this is a complex and serious problem that has no ideal solution. As the V2.1 surplus is owned by the protocol i think it’s best to use this to help with the V3 deficits. But I also seriously think we need to respect the opt-in upgradability for V2.1 LP’s; give them the option to withdraw without IL-protection. This is the contract we agreed to - if we start breaking these things we are going down a slippery hill.
2 Likes
Let me just bundle my questions and remarks:
If this only applies to upgrading the contract, where is that stated?
If this paragraph refers to upgrading a contract, and contract owners can choose to upgrade/opt out, then why does the text itself state “Token owners can choose between moving to the new system or staying in the old one.”?
@Loverplaid I was never trying to make the claim that what Yudi said was meant to be related to or connected with what I said in that statement. they are 2 separate matters that both relate to deficit / surplus.
I don’t see why people would try to connect the 2 of these things as 1 matter discussed how a deficit was created , while the other talks about (before this mess happned) how a surplus was created.
Given the IL that had previously occured , when deficits were created, how much of the IL was removed from the surplus created and how much IL was removed from users positions? I think this would be rather difficult to correctly calculate.
Hence it would be easier and better for the protocol as a whole for ALL LPs to migrate to v3 + any surpluses.
@cryptokitty I do not know what pool you are currently in, but I am pretty sure that your position already took a haircut, but your portfoilio page is not up to date and reflecting your current position. Keep in mind the only reason why positions are at 100% of what was put in was SOLEY because of ILP. Price swings back and forth chop up positions… and after the negative price action prior to this mess and after… you better understand that your position wasn’t immune to IL.
To sum things up - most everyone here decided to LP with bancor because of ILP. This was turned off and changes were made. You would be silly to think that this would be the only change. The protocol needs to go through major changes across the board in order to repair the damage done. Like it or not, the developers are seeking to fix this problem, not fix a group of peoples positions, make them whole simply so they can leave with still a sour taste in their mouths.
But it is also getting clear that this community is extremely divided on this matter, and a big part of this is because we are all shooting blank ideas about things we do not 100% understand and we NEED all of the up to date facts on everyones situation. v3 people are aware. v2 people have not been given information on their current positions, and they should be given this asap so there is clarity for the whole community.
Given the IL that had previously occured , when deficits were created, how much of the IL was removed from the surplus created and how much IL was removed from users positions? I think this would be rather difficult to correctly calculate.
Let me get this straight.
You’re proposing to ignore previously stated terms and conditions, and damage certain individual V2.1 depositors that are currently nowhere near the current deficit on V3 in their pool, because “It will be difficult to calculate their actual IL”?
You think that’s morally correct?
You’re making this argument based on a minimal percentage of “ILP” being given to V2.1 depositors (for ACTUAL IL as well, not the Bancor unique IL), because “that’s not fair”, but forcing certain people into giving up 45% of their position IS fair?
if you cannot correctly calculate how much of the funds belong to the users , and how much of the funds belong to the protocols surplus , then how can you disperse funds when you don’t know how to correctly separate the two?
and regarding your second point
given all the IL that occured due to the mass minting of BNT … and selling of these BNT … are you implying that this was only a v3 problem? you now that when the bnt was sold, trades were also routed through v2 pools. Do you feel that by staying in v2 that positions were immune to the IL that was occurring in v3?
And No I dont think anyone getting a 45% haircut is fair. absolutely not. but this is what happened due to bancors point of failure. not a v3 or v2 problem. a bancor as a whole problem
1 Like
This is incorrect.
The Upgradeability Term is from the README.md on the landing page of legacy repo from v2.1, pertaining to the full contract suite (the v2.1 protocol in its entirety).
In no way does it imply it pertains to the converter contracts specifically which is 2 folders deep into the github hierarchy.
anyways ill bring this around to something I we can both agree on.
I would like for the developers to update the v2 portfolio page, as they did in v3, to show the up to date and accurate readings of everyones position.
With this update, ( I dont know if this affects the IL of peoples positons ) I would like any surpluses to be excluded as to not skew the information. ( when funds move from v2 to v3, my IL improves daily so I am assuming if a surplus moves to or from, it may impact positions IL ?? just a guess I have no idea )
1 Like
@jindo Please comment on my proposal. I cc’d you as I think your feedback is important and is my best attempt for an unbiased middle path solution.
Holistic Solution that Benefits All Stakeholders
The $10M aggregate surplus from v2.1 should be applied to alleviate all pools on b3.
2.1 LPs should be allowed to withdraw directly with no impermanent loss protection, as it takes a minor smart contract tweak.
This benefits all parties and jump starts the dai or protection model fund. Thanks.
I assume you’re referring to TKN LPs moving between one v2.1 version to another v2.1 version and not to v3.
“Token owners” is probably a typo - it’s the “contract owner” (originally I believe many projects actually created their own pools).
But the bottom line is that the contract allows owners to opt-in on upgrades and not LPs.
For surplus pools, there is nothing to calculate. 100% of what the user deposited is still in that pool, as BNT outperformed the matched token. The surplus was created by rebalancing and fee earning on the protocol earned tkns, so that’s easy. After reconsidering (it’s complex material), it’s clear to me that there is no factual ILP given in that case at all, the pool was healthy and didn’t require ILP to begin with. Withdrawing would not require BNT printing and would not affect the protocol owned surplus.
And yes, I feel those that opted out of both the potential benefits of V3, and the potential deficits and possible smart contracts risk are immune to the conditions that occurred in V3 pools, exactly as stated here: GitHub - bancorprotocol/contracts-solidity: Bancor Protocol Contracts