my points have not been hashed out.
dumb move to push this forward right here right now
what if btc grows faster than eth ?
what if the alts rally and outperform eth ?
imagine selling close to the very bottom of the altcoin bear market. that would be a fkin dumb move. or putting all eggs into one basket and not having btc when an etf pops off. I thought you guys were all pro carbon traders
My point is this was in discourse for weeks and you didnāt participate until now. Itās not pushed at all when there was nearly a month of discussion. @alphavalion answered everyoneās questions one by one.
I wasnāt paying attn to bancor during the last month. that previous post only had 3-4 people asking questions, and the conversations were missing key points that did not get addressed.
this surplus is the largest amount of $$ that bancor has been able to utilize in who knows how longā¦ forever? since we the dao gets no say in the foundation funds. so are you seriousily telling me, that you, yudi and alphavalion get to be the ones to decide the terms for how these funds are utilized? one month with virtually no community participation? wtf
if this vote passes, and if
if the right person can somehow magically pick a good opportune time to trade alt surpluses into ethā¦ that alone will do better than ANY strategy you guys could EVER create. I donāt mean to attack you here, but I want to get these points across, so that you can understand that simply transfering surplus into eth is not a well thought out plan, and without discussing these topicsā¦ then it is being pushed outā¦ despite the previous thread
also
there are no terms defined with how long these funds will remain in the strategy and when they will be released from bancors control and given back to the community in order to pay down the deficit.
WHAT IF
the funds that are placed in the strategy could almost entirely pay off the deficit, or have the option to stay within the strategy for another 2-3 years and pay off the deficit with the profitsā¦ what would the bancor team and foundation choose? paying off the deficit with the faster route? or make everyone wait several additional years? The foundation will want to keep the funds and make everyone wait. The team ā¦ contributorsā¦ get their payroll from the foundation. When you combine the team and the foundation, they probably control the majority of the bnt tokens being voted with.
There were NO terms outlined within the vote regarding this potential issue.
So the Vote is missing TONS of details. Yes it was pushed, and not well thought out.
( sorry if i sound like an asshole or incoherent, im not the best with my words and articulating things in a clear / professional way )
The vote has passed in snapshot. Almost ALL tokens on Ethereum have a pool with ETH as a base asset and this is not surprising as we are on the Ethereum network. It is important to utilize the most liquid token pools when performing these swaps as they will let the DAO get the most money due to the least amount of slippage. You can look at all TKN pairs that exist on Ethereum across all liquidity pools and I can guarantee you that it will be true for almost ALL tokens. I did some looking a few weeks ago for example
a. 16,348,844 DRC is roughly 2.85 ETH via 1inch and Uni V2 has the most liquidity (Uniswap Info )
b. 10,174,547 FODL is roughly 12.95 ETH via 1inch and SUSHI has the most liquidity
(https://www.sushi.com/pools/1:0xa5c475167f03b1556c054e0da78192cd2779087f , Pools | Sushi )
c. 3,375 DAO is roughly 2.71 ETH via 1inch and Uni V3 has the most liquidity (Uniswap Info)
d. 6,338,693 AUC has little to no liquidity anywhere and when swapping this amount via 1inch 90% gets routed to Bancor (split evenly between v2.1/v3). No ETH estimate for this one and the following Uni V2 pool can be used to get pricing Uniswap Info
e. 6,116 DDX is roughly 1.08 ETH via 1inch and Sushi/Uni v2 have the most liquidity
(https://www.sushi.com/pools/1:0xc2b0f2a7f736d3b908bdde8608177c8fc28c1690 , Uniswap Info)
f. 37,332 KTN is roughly 4.87 ETH via 1inch and Uni v2 has the most liquidity (Uniswap Info )
g. 789 SHEESHA is roughly 2.77 ETH via 1inch and Uni v2 has the most liquidity
Uniswap Info
h. 73,701 APW is roughly 12.048164 ETH via 1inch and Sushi has the most liquidity
Pools | Sushi
i. 32,069 IDLE is roughly 4.05 ETH via 1inch and Sushi/Uni have the most liquidity
Pools | Sushi
https://www.sushi.com/pools/1:0x0f337c77b5209ba363ad821ee5b0d6db4964f59b
Uniswap Info
Uniswap Info
j. 1,640,917 HEGIC is roughly 7.68 ETH via 1inch and Sushi/1inch have the most liquidity
Pools | Sushi
Having a token that is the most liquid lets the DAO easily decide how to utilize that surplus in the future and there are three different strategies being discussed which is the next step.
It should be very clear to EVERYONE that the ultimate destination of the surplus is to buy back BNT from the markets and burn it. This is the only method in which ALL LPs benefit from deficit reduction. This DAO has already voted for similar methods in Bancor v2.1, v3, and Carbon and I think ALL are aligned on this going forward.
This is a BNT circulating supply chart and it is all that matters to ANYONE from the outside looking to buy BNT and for ALL LPs in Bancor.
The DAO can not stop moving forward because of any individual. All 4376 vBNT holders can participate in the DAO and this number is higher as the governance contract counts as 1 holder
foxsteven richardsonmark yudi
How does the DAO track the current process of the tokens being converted to ETH? Is there a wallet that can be monitored?
Yes all vbnt holders can vote, but almost no one realized this vote was going onā¦ as you can understand that its pretty easy for people to not pay attention for 1 month during summer.
Had there been more communication, and a community call to cover this topicā¦ then perhaps others like myself would have stepped up to the plate and point out flaws or issues missed and not covered.
I did raise awareness for issues missed, and you and the other guy didnāt care to make a response to my concernsā¦ which should really be ALL of our concerns.
I understand that almost all TKN pools have an eth pairing. But that is not the issue here.
The issue here isā¦ how can we BEST maximize the funds that we have moving forward so that we can close the deficit in the most optimal way moving forward. The fact that there is an eth trading pair for each TKN is only a very minor factor. Any action that we take should be focused on closing the deficit, and maximizing the potential gains for the surplus.
So if you or anyone else responds to this. then answer these following questionsā¦ because these were the BIG GLARING oversights within your vote that passed.
If we convert all surplus TKNs into another coin, is ETH the best option? If you say yes, then you are essentially going ALL IN on eth at an undetermined price and time, and you also believe that ETH is the safest coin that will give the MAXIMUM gains over the next period of time. You also believe ETH in the short - mid term will also outperform other TKNs like wBTC. My concern here is that ifā¦ big IFā¦ btc gets an ETFā¦ eth will underperform BTC. Anyone here disagree with the notion that a btc etf will make btc skyrocket and alts including eth wont be able to keep pace, at least initially? and going back to the first point, would you trade 3-5$ of alts into eth at a completely random price and time?
when is the surplus being converted into ETH? are we selling all the surplus alts into eth at the bottom of the altcoin bear market? If alts rally against eth, then weā¦ EVERY bancor LP just missed out on a rally which could have helped us close the deficit. So how and when is the surplus being converted? are we simply just hitting the red button regardless of how the charts look and the market outlook moving forward? Are we selling low and buying high??? I do not understand how this point was overlooked. You literally took the entire bancor piggy bank and saidā¦ sell ā¦ WITH NO STRATEGY !
Now that the funds are going to be converted into eth. I am assuming that the dao will vote on how to allocate these funds towards whatever strategy to hopefully outperform the market. Who will actively manage these strategies? Does bancor owe taxes to the government for these trades? At what stage will all of these funds revert back to the DAO and go directly towards repairing the deficit? ( buying and burning bnt ) My concern here is that this vote became the initial step at giving the bancor dao a 3-5$ million fund to play with. The bancor dao is controlled by the foundation and team. Anyone who disagrees can choose to play stupid, or simply say, well anyone can voteā¦ well we all know in the back of our minds how many wallets show up to vote, and also that the ultimate direction of ANY vote can be swayed in the favor of the foundation and team. Going back to my previous example, what if hypothetically we could pay off the debt today and everyone made whole, OR, leave the funds in a strategy that can repay the deficit after 2 years. Which choice do you think the foundation or team would prefer?
and there are more issues missing that need to be covered. But respond to these 3 points so that we can move forward. So far @alphavalion @PaperStreetCapital . You guys circled around all of these concerns.
Hey,
Itās currently under technical design - itās a bit involved so I imagine it will take a few weeks.
The current thinking is that weāll have a dedicated contract that will hold these funds/convert them/hold the protocol owned strategies etc.
Weāll most likely need to use an oracle to determine the rough price to prevent abuse etc., so there are a few security concerns, but itās solvable.
Once we have that in place, that contract will also serve as the wallet the DAO can monitor.
It is mentioned in this thread and in the linked thread that there needs to be an oracle to get pricing information. All of the TKNs that are in surplus have available ETH oracles that can be used to create a strategy that sells them for ETH.
No one can predict the price of ETH, wBTC, BNT, or any other token. The goal is to convert the surplus into a universal token that can be used to create a strategy on Carbon to bootstrap the protocol. There are three strategies that are proposed on Carbon and all have the same outcome which is to buyback BNT and burn. The strategies are NOT to be actively managed and to have zero or no involvement from the DAO besides creating it and maybe a few updates every quarter depending on the strategy.
Bancor is a DAO controlled by all vBNT holders. If you have been involved for any small amount of time you can easily tell that the foundation has always abstained from voting. Their vote does not count for or against any DAO proposals.
Yes I see that the foundation abstains from votes, and I also see that there is only a small handful of participants that actually vote, the largest wallets being that of most likely team members. If youāre telling me that the possibility, or likelihood, that the direction isnāt easily swayed one way or another by someone related to the team or foundation, then, I donāt know what to sayā¦
Anyways, I listed 3 major concerns, that once again, you looked past. Answer them, or point out where Iām wrong.
The goal should be to pay down the deficit in the most optimal way moving forward. The goal should not be to bootstrap carbon ( albeit that can be part of the solution, but you didnāt say it like that, which shows your intentions )
Correct, there are 24m vBNT in existence that can be use for voting and the foundation abstains from voting. vBNT is generated by staking BNT in v3 and anyone can buy BNT from the market to vote in the Bancor DAO.
Has been made more than clear in
and the three strategies that have been proposed all generate fees via Carbon which go towards deficit reduction. Any and all surplus eventually is used to acquire BNT to buyback and burn in one form or another and some quicker than others.
are these strategies likely to outperform either buying and holding eth or wbtc? or a mixture between the two?
will these strategies outperform selling a particular altcoin into eth at a more favorable time?
I get it. Mark & team want to push carbon forward. And since theyre having a hard time convincing people to use the platform, they want to give it a push and boostrap TVL with bancors surplus funds. No one said that. Iām just reading in between the lines.
But what you have chosen to ignore are still the major issues that I discussed. I dont get it. Perhaps youāre not reading my responses in full?
Literally every LP ā¦ 99% of LPsā¦ primarily care to see the deficit repaired ASAP. Yes I get it, the other 1% does as well. But the other 1%, which just so happens to hold 99% of the sway in every DAO votes direction, also wants to see Carbon succeed and thrive, and Iād say, to the same degree of more, because if Carbon thrives, then eventually the deficit will be hopefully repaired.
On the flipside, if lets say perhaps Bancor had a good connection to a top trader, who could then tell the bancor team, a more optimal or better time to trade surplus TKN into Eth or wBTCā¦ to get more bang for our buckā¦ lets just pretend here okay. humor me. Can you not see a point here, where, possibly, better trading execution here may outperform a carbon strategy? and if so, then why can these 2 ideas not be combined. Why must we sell TKN to ETH at an arbitrary time when some bancor dev coder finishes his/her backend work to facilitate all this? and what ifā¦ the BTC etf gets approved and initially demolishes the btc/eth ratio, and our deficit blows up far beyond bancor or carbons controlā¦ what if these surplus funds are placed into a strategy that underperforms the market because it sold high, then the prices continued higher? When was the last time you sold an altcoin based on the price being within a 5% range of TWAP?? lol
Why are we not seeking help from someone with a better understanding of markets to help give some ideas and better insight into how to get the most out from bancors altcoin surplus bags. We are having people who clearly have little to no trading experience, make the decisions on how to play with every depositors well being. I get it, Mark and friends want to bootstap carbon. Carbon would look much better to newcomers if the majority of funds in TVL didnt come from the project itself
I just want to add that I personally donāt prefer bootstrapping carbon over reducing the deficit which remains the top priority.
I think most people who suggest bootstrapping carbon with the v3 POL believe that this is the best way to reduce the deficit. Remember that one of the main reason for creating carbon was to create a revenue stream for the protocol, that can be used to help reducing the deficit, and this remains the top priority of this proposal as well.
Yes I also believe that those intentions are there as well.
But when a plan that has been pushed forward chose to sell all of the funds that we have to work with, a sizeable amount, and sell 3-5 million dollars worth of altcoins without a selling strategy even being considered, and into eth ( my 2nd favorite coin ) without considering the notion that btc may outperform it in the short - mid term, especially if a btc etf gets approved, then I canāt help but feel the need to speak up. Because no one trades like that. no one sells 3-5 million dollars of altcoins without a plan. and going all in on eth, without considering adding btc could be a mistake.
If the main goal is to close the deficit, then how can we not consider the fact that a good selling strategy, (may), earn us more $$ than any good carbon strategy that we could think of. We are trying to earn $$, right? or are we trying to simply place funds into carbon strategies that will earn $ ? why not both? and if a btc etf pops off, then you better believe that we would all be in better shape holding some extra btc ( if at least to convert into eth and alts after it rips )
weāve all been through bull and bearā¦ and back to bull cyclesā¦ we know how these things generally play out. we might not know exactly how they willā¦ but you know enough to know that what im saying has merit to it
It might not be the most efficient trading strategy but I think we should also consider dev time + decentralization - the solution that was voted on is complex enough - more complexity will require more dev time. I wouldnāt try to go for extreme optimization which quite frankly might turn out to be worst in the long run.
This solution is reasonably simple that should meet the goals we set for ourselves and itās also not very complex in terms of product - itās a first step that can move resolving the deficit issue forward.
Step by stepā¦
My whole issue is that the ātrading strategyā simply doesnāt exist. Sure we know which coin to trade into, and I also disagree with what was ultimately decided, but there was not even a conversation that took place with how and when to trade the surplus into eth ( besides the price being within 5% of twap ).
What I want, is for the deficit to close ASAP, and I know that if the current plan maintains its current path, but we also add in one additional step of having an experienced trader tell the developer when to press the sell button, that the potential ( not guaranteed ) gains from simply choosing a more optimal time, can yield a far greater return than years worth of APY% from a strategy, that may, or may not, outperform simply hodling eth or btc.
@yudi , I also had a question for you, if we used the 3-5 mil surplus into directly buying BNT, would that simply reduce the deficit by the same amount? or would that also have an impact on the price of BNT which could close the gap even further?
The issue is that a trader managing the strategy will make the solution centralized which we should avoid.
Re. your question, the trade doesnāt directly affect the deficit as that happens outside the v3 system, it indirectly affects it over time (but also not 100% guaranteed) - so the latter.
I would have assumed if a market buy of several million dollars would then in turn affect the price of bnt in a positive way against each TKN pairing. I was just wondering if someone had ever done the math on this, or simulated it, to see what would happen to the deficit post 3-5 mil of bnt being bought and burnt and the price of bnt instantly rising.
Because lets say we put the surplus funds into a strategy, which helped to pay down the deficit with the fees earned. At what specific point, would these funds have earned enough, where we could then shut down the strategies, and then use all of the pooled surplus funds to directly buy and burn bnt.
If my question wasnāt clear. I want to know, if we have x$ deficit remaining, how low do we need to bring x , in order for us to simply use the surplus funds to directly close the gap. The = $ amount ? or more or less?
IMO itās impossible to simulate it/get an answer to that question - you canāt simulate a chaotic system unfortunately, too many moving parts, so all weād get is a biased/flawed simulation.
Itās clear and we can assume that itās a positive force in reducing the deficit, so that is the assumption that this discussion is based off.
So if this is unclear, then it is also unclear when or if these funds will ever be used as a direct means towards repairing the deficit ( buying and burning bnt ). Sure at some arbitrary moment, the DAO may decide to vote on closing the strategies and buying / burning bnt, but without having a guesstimation here on the effectiveness of doing so, itās unlikely that a vote like this would ever pass.
And its even more likely, that the ones currently in charge of swaying the direction of each vote, would prefer to keep control over these funds. ( yes blah blah I get it, bancor dao is decentralised and anyone can vote)
Itās clear to meā¦ and anyone else who looks at any of the previous snapshotsā¦ or governance postsā¦ that there is little to no participation. Team, friends and a couple sheep are in full control, without opposing opinions. And it is clear as day to me, where we are headed. For the good of bancorā¦ for the good of carbonā¦ and afterwards, fingers crossed, maybe, for the good of the previous users held captive.
Iāll be clear here. We are not in the position that weāre in today because of ILP failed us, we are in this position because those in charged failed to act fast enough, despite having the cool down period and having the writing on the wall. Any deflection is simply an excuse, because I know there are math wizards behind the Bancor scenesā¦ and yet the situation was also allowed to worsen beyond its initial stagesā¦ not because ILPā¦ but because of pride? determination to one day have bancors cumulative community owned fees outweigh the additional impermanent loss?
I have yet to hear a contingency plan from those in charge of ā¦ what if eventsā¦ what if deficit begins to go parabolic? we have all seen that with high volatile moments in eth or wbtc, the deficit grows and grows. at what point do we stop it? Surely you must all see that the fees bancor earns is nothing to brag about. But if we see an extreme volatile market moving forward, then we can all guess whatāll happen to the deficit.
And now you guys get a cool 3-5 mil to play withā¦congratsā¦ while also getting a 0% interest loan on 100% of depositors fundsā¦ clap clapā¦ Iād feel ashamed
Every single action that the team makes should be towards repairing the deficit in the fastest way possibleā¦ the most efficient way possibleā¦ even if that means more hours of work need to be put in.
Yudi I got nothing against youā¦ or from anyone from the team really. I just feel that those affected by the deficit have not had their bests interest at the forefront of the actions taken thus far. Including with this whole surplus to eth vote. I just see bancor / foundation / team winning and moving forward
