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:
- Move surplus to a new wallet using the Bancor Network Deployer. There exist a precedent that I have shown previously where this was done.
- 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.