My point is that it’s impossible to get the number that should have been moved since it was affected by multiple things since then.
Also I’m not sure what it means for existing LPs - for example if the pool rate changes such as the pools get into a deficit while surplus was migrated.
So not obvious to me.
the DAO can of course vote on that regardless but it’s still not going to be 100% objective.
I think this is the right direction. I would suggest however it might be cleaner to do:
This effectively deprecates the 2.1 pools and allows all the liquidity to be focused toward v3 revenue generating solutions.
So when is this going to be voted on?
Just confirming here. Does a withdrawal of 2.1 LP position takes out from the surplus as well or since its planned with respectove IL position turned on so it doesnt?
If its not related so why migrating the surplus comes last when it can come first or be totally separate from this vote?
Before BNT distribution was paused, withdrawals always ensured LPs are getting the value of their original stake + fees.
This means that they did not suffer from the deficit and did not enjoy the surplus.
Post BNT distribution, if direct withdrawals are enabled, it’s hard to say.
This seems to be the best way to move forward. And this presumably doesn’t require much work as the brunt of the work is postponed while allowing v2.1 users a somewhat fair option to exit while respecting their decision to stay in v2.1
Can this be voted on now? @yudi?
I think it would be better to break it down to multiple proposals, otherwise community members that won’t support one of the items (for example I don’t support forcing v2.1 migrations) will vote against the entire thing.
so can you get a proposal up that you would support? or even better multiple proposals. did you disclose as a contributor if you are still staked in v2.1 or moved to v.3?
just a proposal going to vote to move the surplus from v.2.1 would give people some hope
I wish I knew, I noted above that for me most of these decisions are highly subjective, I’d rather focus on solutions vs. debating what to do with the surplus. I leave that to the rest of the community.
And I that’s why I also don’t think it makes sense for me to create a proposal on this matter.
How is that? Withdrawing from v2.1 is a basic functionality that has been supported since the very beginning of v2.1. It shouldn’t require much effort to turn this back on.
For the workload on the team to enable v2.1 withdrawals without IL protection, please see Proposal: Move v2.1 liquidity to v3 - #75 by infoparity. tldr: that is a very simple step that only requires setting the BNT Minter to return 0 BNT.
When will this proposal be submitted to vote?
It’s been one month guys… I feel like we just go around in circles… Still no concrete solution. DAO forum activity on LVL 1 proposals is dead. Deficit growing day after day…
Do something please, you won’t recover a 40m$+ protocol deficit by just generating 10k$ more fees a day. No one want to wait 10 years to get recovered. BNT will be 100 times dead until then.
I believe it will also require defining how much each LP should get in a different manner than today, but it’s doable.
It’s important to have that definition as part of the proposal though, so there won’t be any misunderstanding.
The deficit % is relatively stable in the past few weeks.
Not to say we shouldn’t move fast but it’s important to understand that the deficit % is what matters and not the $ value.
We should not forget the crucial, underlying promises that DeFi is built upon:
Everyone is given equal rights to interact with smart contracts in a trustless way. There is no censorship, there are no exceptions, there is no authority besides everyone’s secret, private key. Smart contracts -and thus all actions someone takes- are deterministic. Their outcomes are guaranteed to all involved parties which have signed said contract with their private key.
That being said, LPs that have signed the migration to V3 have agreed to
Others have decided to not migrate and to not accept V3 terms. They continue using V2.1 under V2.1 terms.
A DAO vote that forcefully moved positions to V3 would not only undermine the fundamental principles of equal rights, trustlessness, and determinism. It would also break the self-sovereignity of LPs over their tokens and force the LPs to terms that they have never signed or agreed to.
What we all did agree to was -among others- ILP protection and the right to withdraw at any time. I understand that these privileges have been paused by a rightful DAO vote and I agree to this decision. Aforementioned points of breaking fundamental ideas of DeFi, though, is something which I can’t accept.
I am astonished that most of this discussion has taken place. It is clear that migrating the surplus is one issue that needs to be voted on. However, forcing a LP migration from v2.1 to v3 is not something that would help v3 recover by any significant margin, and importantly, allowing this to occur would go against end user agreements, the upgradability clause, and fundamental DeFi principles. It is imperative that v2.1 withdraws be re-enabled within a reasonable time-frame - any voting on this topic should pertain to the mechanism as to how this will occur, not whether it SHOULD occur.
Are you in 2.1 or 3?
How about LPs that have left?
This discussion has been ongoing for three weeks.
When is this going to a vote?
One potential path forward for a vote:
Vote #1:
FOR = migration of 2.1 (surplus + positions) will occur;
AGAINST = migration of 2.1 will not occur [current status quo].
IF Vote #1 passes—
Vote #2:
FOR = migration of 2.1 (surplus + positions) will occur instantaneously;
AGAINST = migration of 2.1 (surplus + positions) will occur with a one week sunset clause – withdrawals will be open for a one week duration with an explicitly announced start/end.
IF Vote #1 fails—
Vote #2:
FOR = 2.1 is open to withdrawal without delay, other than implementation;
AGAINST = 2.1 remains closed to withdrawal without first migration to v3 [status quo].
Other than discussion about surplus / position differentiation, does that not capture most of the competing alternatives discussed here? I’m of the opinion we need to put this issue to bed and move on to actually dealing with the deficit.