Proposal to create a DDX-ETH strategy on Carbon using DDX Bancor 3 Surplus

At which price should surplus tokens be sold?

  • Current Spot Price
  • 30-day TWAP with a 5% Premium
  • 30-day TWAP with a 5% Discount
0 voters

Expected on Snapshot in the future

This proposal is split from the discussion that has happened in this thread

and Bancorians should read that post to have an understanding about this proposal

TL;DR

  • DDX token surplus in Bancor v3 to be moved to a new address
  • From the new address create a sell limit disposable ETH-DDX carbon strategy
  • Calculate 30 day twap at time of strategy creation and add a 5% premium to arrive at the sell price in ETH

Summary

Now that the Bancor DAO voted to disable 10 pools last week, this proposal seeks to take one of the tokens, DDX, to have a Carbon strategy created. I am creating a single proposal to gauge community sentiment in snapshot and should the proposal pass have the Carbon team go through the motions required to perform such an operation. More proposals to be created for the remaining tokens if this passes :construction_worker_woman::man_construction_worker::muscle:

In as much detail as I can provide, this proposal seeks the following set of steps to be performed if it passes.

  1. Remove the surplus DDX tokens from the V3 mastervault using the “Bancor Network: Deployer” and move it to a new address. Refer to this TX as a reference for a similar operation.
  1. Calculate the last 30 day time weighted average price for the DDX token. A calculation has been provided as an example using coingecko data for DDX-USD over the last 30 days. I do not have access to any advance analytics API that might provide more granular data, for example open price, high price, low price, and close price for tokens.

This calculation was performed as of today but it should be repeated at time of strategy creation

Date price
2023-05-13 00:00:00 UTC 0.308955473
2023-05-14 00:00:00 UTC 0.32480991
2023-05-15 00:00:00 UTC 0.340428586
2023-05-16 00:00:00 UTC 0.324526506
2023-05-17 00:00:00 UTC 0.3339988
2023-05-18 00:00:00 UTC 0.343180685
2023-05-19 00:00:00 UTC 0.354782833
2023-05-20 00:00:00 UTC 0.339690816
2023-05-21 00:00:00 UTC 0.332309239
2023-05-22 00:00:00 UTC 0.338155855
2023-05-23 00:00:00 UTC 0.320310994
2023-05-24 00:00:00 UTC 0.323264752
2023-05-25 00:00:00 UTC 0.312902665
2023-05-26 00:00:00 UTC 0.316497722
2023-05-27 00:00:00 UTC 0.315923412
2023-05-28 00:00:00 UTC 0.311561851
2023-05-29 00:00:00 UTC 0.317642333
2023-05-30 00:00:00 UTC 0.303791576
2023-05-31 00:00:00 UTC 0.324294888
2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC 0.32504662
2023-06-02 00:00:00 UTC 0.329422114
2023-06-03 00:00:00 UTC 0.333431445
2023-06-04 00:00:00 UTC 0.352358638
2023-06-05 00:00:00 UTC 0.348162462
2023-06-06 00:00:00 UTC 0.327579039
2023-06-07 00:00:00 UTC 0.338734012
2023-06-08 00:00:00 UTC 0.332718685
2023-06-09 00:00:00 UTC 0.325730425
2023-06-10 00:00:00 UTC 0.341590235
2023-06-11 00:00:00 UTC 0.279460843
Average 0.327375447

The average price has been

.327375447 USD

over the last 30 days. We now add a 5% premium to this amount which results in a total of

0.34374421935 USD

using current ETH prices, this is equivalent to

0.00019519 ETH

This means that we would sell each DDX token for 0.00019519 ETH if we were to create a Carbon strategy at time of writing.

If the Carbon team has access to more granular pricing information then use the following method to find a 30 day TWAP price for DDX then add a 5% premium to the result.

Average of each day’s price = (Open + High + Low + Close)/4

Average of 30 days = (Average of first day’s price + Average of second day’s price +…+ Average of thirtieth day’s price)/30

  1. From the new address in step 1, create a Carbon ETH-TKN disposable sell limit strategy

Sell Budget: The entire DDX surplus that exist in Bancor v3 and which was moved to a new address in step 1.

Sell Price: The price in ETH calculated in the previous steps which is 0.00019519 ETH

I am using the UI as an example but the Carbon team can use any methods or tools at their disposable to create such a strategy.

If this proposals passes, the Bancor community has managed to increased the TVL of Carbon by ~$1700 :fire::fire::fire: as of time of writing with the assumption there is 6116 DDX tokens in surplus which were there when I started this process. At some point in the future this strategy might be filled and 1.19378204 ETH will be acquired when this happens :sparkler::fireworks:

The Bancor DAO can choose how to use such ETH amount when this occurs. I have provided an idea in my original thread for what can be done with ETH but we must take one step at a time. For now, I will only focus on disabling old pools and the creation of disposable strategies in Carbon that sells surplus tokens for ETH.

For

Within 30 days of this proposal passing, create a Carbon disposable sell limit DDX-ETH strategy to sell any DDX bancor 3 surplus for ETH using the steps described in this proposal.

Against

Do nothing.

2 Likes

Hey @alphavalion I think the general direction does make sense but having a strategy per token is risky & going to be difficult to manage.
If we could come up with a solution that can support all tokens and doesn’t require active management - that would be ideal.
Did you consider having the protocol create a stable to stable strategy? Such a strategy requires 0 management and is also more predictable.

Thoughts?

4 Likes

I think as a first we need to be able to convert the surplus to another token. So this proposal is seeking to use Carbon to convert it to ETH via a disposable sell limit order. What happens with the ETH that the protocol acquires I think would be a separate proposal.

I have not considered a stable to stable strategy. Can you add more details about what that looks like and set of steps to get there?

I count about 50 tokens in surplus including the ones disabled last week. This means that this would require the creation of 50 TKN-ETH strategies on Carbon to sell these for ETH. I think a few might sell for ETH as the market recovers but it might be a while for these price targets to be met as there is a 5% premium that we are adding. I don’t think there is any rush for us to sell these off and just having the orders active in Carbon will help with TVL metric for example.

If the DAO wants to sell these tokens immediately then the proposal can be adjusted to not have a 5% premium and have the sell order be listed at market price or below at a discount.

I don’t expect much active management and the DAO can revisit the eth per token rate on the strategies that never filled in 3 months time frame and adjust as necessary. I expect by that point in time that the strategies for some of these tokens to have already been filled and the DAO acquiring ETH as a result.

2 Likes

This is something I’m working on now. Trying to map out a way to make use of POL on Carbon with a stable/stable strategy.

One challenge is that the approach I’m exploring uses vortex like mechanisms (public functions that anyone can call).

I hope to be ready to share something fairly detailed in the next 2-7 days.

4 Likes

We like the idea directionally but worry about practical execution. As it has many potential execution risks, we’d like to explore a way of mass converting all tokens to ETH

5 Likes

Thanks for all the hard work lately on getting these proposals together. Would it be reasonable to ask if this needs to go to a vote in a few days? It seems like the proposal itself is in the process of getting fine tuned, so it may be best to then have a few days to analyze the finalized proposal. Could run into a situation in which a final product appears immediately before a vote.

3 Likes

I will postpone my proposal until next Sunday the 25th to see what this proposal entails. As a stable/stable strategy has been mentioned, I think what this suggest is to sell the tokens for a stablecoin. I think this is a large mistake but will reserve further judgement until I see the full proposal.

100% in agreement with this direction of converting any and all surplus to ETH.

Proposal postponed until 6/25/2023 :+1:

5 Likes

I tend to lean towards the philosophy of “everything that’s done by the DAO should be done to alleviate the deficit as quickly as possible”. The fact is that most of those pools were in surplus because their tokens underperformed BNT over an extended period of time, despite the mass supply inflation of BNT minting. Many of those pools didn’t log particularly strong trading activity either, so the market hasn’t exactly been brimming with enthusiasm for them.

I would strongly encourage listing them at or slightly below market rate (to ensure arb bots pick them up); would rather bank 100% of the potential return ASAP, rather than potentially waiting, adjusting, and actively managing because historically-underperforming tokens didn’t gain a 5% premium for that theoretical 105% return.

2 Likes

Tagging @OverAnalyser @Jindo @AnimaDunk @sylentz for feedback.

3 Likes

Maybe for the DAO to consider if we want to sell them at current spot price, at 30 day TWAP with a 5% discount, or at 30 day TWAP with a 5% premium. I will create a poll once I figure that out to get community feedback.

I personally think that the DAO should not be in any hurry to sell these tokens for ETH and just having them sitting in Carbon with active limit orders will help with building up the protocol TVL. I also think that the market has recently taken a downturn and that it will recover in the future. This means that waiting for the market to recover and having it meet us where we are selling is beneficial.

My personal philosophy that I applied to life, slow and steady wins the race.

3 Likes

A poll has been added to the original post.

2 Likes

Excerpt from the thread I posted just now to the community chat:

2 Likes

It is better to ask here than on the other proposal. I am concern about this statement @mbr or @foxsteven

The only satisfactory process must be one where there are a set of functions that can be called by literally anyone, which facilitate the exchange of tokens into the desired pair, and the creation of a strategy with unambiguous settings. This is the decentralization requirement which, for example, would prohibit the use of a generic token tracker and entrusting an individual with correctly interpreting it, and maintaining the strategy on chain in accordance with the DAO’s guidelines, as suggested in the proposal. To create a system of smart contracts to achieve what is proposed, in terms of regularly updating the strategy conditions in accordance with a TWAP, is similarly untenable.

According to whom is this the only satisfactory process that must be followed? This community has voted as a DAO on other proposals that did not have this requirement. My understanding is that the DAO voting for a proposal is more than enough to meet any decentralization requirements

As a summary this proposal is asking for the following set of steps:

  1. Move surplus to a new wallet using the Bancor Network Deployer. There exist a precedent that I have shown previously where this was done.
  2. Create a limit order either at the current spot price or based on the twap with a premium or discount. There exist a precedent for selling surplus tokens via a decentralized exchange which I have shown previously.

for clarity there is no regular updates that I am suggesting. The only set of follow up steps are the following

A. If the order is filled then we need to withdraw the ETH. The DAO will then need to decide how to utilize the ETH. This will require another proposal.

B. If the order is not filled then after some time let’s say 3 months the DAO can decide to modify the order to sell at a discount to get rid of the tokens. Again this can be a follow up proposal.

I don’t see any other “maintenance items” and have still not received a sufficient explanation as to why this can’t be done?

Heck, you can even replace step 2 with market dumping via an aggregator for ETH which was done for the renBTC proposal if there is this much apprehension from the team to use Carbon. It is VERY worrisome for me and I think for the community that is seeing these proposals that do not utilize the Carbon protocol for its benefits.

Carbon is the flagship product of Bancor and we should set an example for other communities to follow when they are trying to sell their tokens for other assets. Not to mention, that it cost us 0 dollars to create and order on Carbon and we get .2% in fees when the order is filled. This means that we pay 0 to jaredfromsubway and also make money in the process.

It should be a very clear choice for this community as to the option that we much choose when selling these surplus tokens.

2 Likes

This is similar to what I have outlined in #3 at the link above. I suggest we remove the snapshot date from this proposal and try to come with a solution for all TKNs as opposed to one by one.

Please let me know if you are in agreement.

But I do think that as a DAO we are coming closer to a generalised solution.

3 Likes

Removing snapshot date and continuing discussion in

2 Likes

Cool - Moving from level 1 to the chatroom - where the other proposal is as well.

1 Like

Core contributors really need to work with the DAO better on this. If we don’t currently have a DAO MSIG to perform these operations then that needs to be step1.

2 Likes

Neither richardsonmark or foxsteven have answered the questions in:

this needs an answer

According to whom is this the only satisfactory process that must be followed?

1 Like