Thanks for testing this out. This is alarming and goes directly against point 2 in Yudi’s reply - “No one can prevent anything from going to vote.”
So is the DAO in control of filtering proposals because there is no “team”, or is the team directly stopping certain votes based on their preference of what is a valid proposal and what is not to the benefit of a certain subset of stakeholders?
There are two other options you may not be considering. First, anyone with an account can flag a post (down at the three dots), as this automatically hides a post. So it could be anyone. The other, and I think more likely, is someone may just be trolling you because you’re clearly upset, and flagging it just because of that. Nothing nefarious by any other user on here, just trolling. I don’t know what exactly is going on, I’m just pointing these out so you don’t unnecessarily burn yourself out, its a high stress time and I understand man, just trying to provide an off ramp to the two options.
A quick reminder that this proposal is discussing how to handle v2.1 liquidity. Any discussions outside of this topic should not be in this thread. There are rules in place for discourse:
https://gov.bancor.network/faq
and post should be driving the conversation forward.
I think I misunderstood.
Is there ever going to be a point where v2.1 are able to leave at their respective IL levels? So far the DAO and dev team have been stead fast against this for multiple reasons.
So what’s there left to do? Either force them over or let them leave, why are we discussing this point still literally 6 weeks later?
When will this be voted on by the DAO? Or are we just buying more time from hostage LPs that are at their wits end. Losing more liquidity by the day, while the defict grows to ATH.
We are discussing the merits and demerits of different approaches and so far seem to be settling in on giving a window to v2.1 LPs to withdraw with their ILs and moving the surplus to v3.
The last point of contention seems to be whether we should migrate the ones who don’t withdraw in the window to v3 after the deadline. The main reason to do that would be to not spend more engineering bandwidth on v2.1 post-migration.
I feel this is fair for all LPs and would bring v2.1 to an end once and for all.
You keep repeating this, but “just because Yudi says so” doesn’t make it true.
The location of that clause is on the Github landing page. There is zero indication it refers to pool owners, neither in the location of the clause, or the terminology used in the clause it self (“Token owners” instead of “Pool owners”, “System” instead of “contract/pool”, “Moving to the new system” instead of “upgrading/updating the pool/contract”.
There is zero logical reason to assume what you are claiming.
I’ll rephrase: no one can prevent anything related to the protocol deployment from going on a vote.
I’m actually a bit confused now about what is being referred to here - if the question is re. migrating from v2.1 to v3, that was always LP opt-in.
I want to know if when v2 users opt to go to v3, do they bring their share of the surplus to v3?
Because if they do, that means the surplus is ‘‘code is law’’ in their control, meaning their lp tokens include the right to their respective share of surplus.
So if this is the case, the v2 surplus belongs to v2 users and should not be forcibly seized.
If the surplus share does not move with the lp when migrating to v3, then it there is a case for it being protocol revenue.
The surplus currently doesn’t migrate with LPs to v3.
Unfortunately, since I believe it’ll be pretty impossible for the community to align on how to handle the surplus (there’s no objective option here), my suggestion is for the community to postpone this discussion and revisit it at a later stage, after the protocol recovers.
I think peoples’ concern is that there won’t be a timely recovery and the moving of the surplus to pools in deficit would lessen the overall haircut and make it a little easier to swallow.
I think some hopium needs to be administered by means of being transparent about features being worked on (3.1) and when they will be implemented before people will let this go.
The noose is closing as deficits increase and we’re being asked to wait patiently as the chair is being slowly pulled out from under us.
Yup, I agree that implementing new features will help, for sure.
I also think we’re pretty close to a point features are starting to go to implementation (there are already a bunch of proposals).
Btw check out analytics.bancor.network - even though the deficit has technically increased in the past 30 days, it’s relatively stable, meaning that new features should actually make a big difference, which I do expect pretty soon. We’ll see how things go but I’m optimistic.
Allowing V2.1 withdrawal directly benefits your specific situation. Objective fact.
Why not put the last agreed measures to vote to see what the opinion of the DAO is?
I would argue that not having to develop for v2.1 anymore would allow development to move fast as well. On top of reducing v3 deficit, it would also calm down the v2.1 LPs as they’d be given a window to withdraw.
Which last agreed measures?
Re. v2.1 dev time, I believe any approach described above will require some dev time but that’s fine, I don’t think dev time should be a consideration in such a sensitive issue, there are enough issues with this as is, so I’m for ignoring dev time specifically here 
This is what I was referring to. Allow v2.1 LPs to withdraw instead of being forced to migrate to v3 and move the surplus over to v3. Encapsulates all the concerns raised so far by both the sides.
As alphavision stated, migrating the LPs to v3 forcefully should be a separate vote to not make this one too complex
The problem is that there is quite a disagreement re. who owns the v2.1 surplus, or rather - it’s actually impossible to determine that, because of the time element.
So you’re suggesting that we should focus on the solutions being proposed elsewhere and forget about this till the deficit is zero? Cause then no would really care?
That’s wasting an opportunity to reduce the protocol’s debt right in front of us. Along with the other expenses we’ll suffer in the meantime, which you say are fine but will lead to longer timelines for development.
On the surplus side -
We’re also giving current v2.1 LPs a chance to withdraw with their respective IL, which they don’t have right now.
I don’t see how this wouldn’t be fair to all parties. I say we put this to vote and let the DAO decide.
The problem is that it’s impossible to determine how the pools would have looked like if surplus would have moved with migrations, since different migrations at different times and rate changes in the pools affected each other.
Wouldn’t that matter if only the surplus which should’ve been moved earlier, is moved?
We’re talking about moving all surplus to v3 here
