Proposal: Whitelist CAP/BNT

Governance General
#1

Hi everyone,

As my first proposal, I’d like to propose the whitelisting of the CAP/BNT pool:

Since its launch, CAP has been struggling to grow due to the lack of liquidity on Uniswap. Holders are very excited about the project and are afraid of impermanent loss. By whitelisting CAP, users will provide much more liquidity and the token will have room to thrive.

There will certainly be IL involved, which will affect all BNT holders, but at the same time this is essentially the cost of doing business. I believe that this can demonstrate that it’s worth taking the IL if it allows tokens to thrive like they can’t elsewhere, driving liquidity to Bancor.

The pool has been set to a 1.5% fee to make things juicier to everyone. I’m convinced this will not affect trading anytime soon given that liquidity on Uniswap is miniscule.

Cheers!

1 Like
#2

I dont know much about CAP. If this project is not legitimate and suddenly pulls liquidity, or manipulates the token or pool somehow, this could be very bad for BNT holders who will pay with BNT generated to cover the losses. What makes CAP worthy of being whitelisted? What gives it legitimacy?

Also, a 1.5% fee on the pool is going to prevent trades from coming through the pool. the pool should have a very low fee in order to win trade volume.

1 Like
#3

Understood, then I think it would be great to define what are the requirements that should be considered to make a project ‘legitimate’.

  • Is a working product enough?

  • Is a certain amount of time in the market enough?

  • Does a certain marketcap make it legitimate enough?

I understand your point on the 1.5% fee, at the same time it doesn’t seem to be stopping people from trading on the USDT/BNT pool. Furthermore, I would propose to reduce the fee once the pool is whitelisted. For now I see the high fee as a way to counter the IL.

1 Like
#4

Very good point on the higher fee. I as well think it would need to significantly lower to attract trading. The thing here, is that Cap is building a protocol that could be the beginning or something that could forever change the face of global finance.

Building a protocol, that others can build on top of, is much different than just launching a token.
I think that with governance right now on testnet, and the development of a completely decentralized protocol all on a decentralized platform, with it’s own oracles which anyone will be able to participate in, is at least worth the consideration.

1 Like
#5

Agreed there should be clear definition of what requirements make a pool “legitimate” and eligible for whitelisting. Maybe that’s another proposal in itself.

Disagree on the 1.5% fee. Bancor’s USDT pool has relatively low trade volume compared to other USDT pools on different AMMs. The fee should be drastically lowered on that pool to between 0.2% - 0.3% in order to be competitive.

#6

CAP does not look like the sort of project that should be whitelisted. It is very difficult to find information about it. The website asks for a beta invite code, and that’s it. I would like to know who Abe Osten is, the author of the whitepapers. Second, the CAP project deals with synthetic assets. These instruments are currently being targeted by regulators, and especially the SEC. The “Cap: Crypto-Synthetic Trading” paper makes a hand-waving reference to regulatory issues:

“Traditional securities laws, which have been effective in preserving market integrity in important ways over the years, can no longer apply; not because blockchain developers intend to break laws, but because those laws make little sense in this new paradigm.”

I think this is a little naive and doesn’t give me any confidence in the future of this coin. Having said that, I am not convinced that CAP has a nefarious purpose. It could be that it has a bright future, but I think it’s too early to know. I have not found anything to inspire trust, and so I my recommendation is that it remains excluded from Bancor for now.

3 Likes
#7

CAP seems to be a new launched project, Not even a Website ready. I’m strongly against this proposal.

4 Likes
#8

Thanks for taking the time to articulate your concerns. While it is true with respect to risk early on with any project, Cap is building a completely decentralized protocol, not simply launching a token. It is quite normal for a degree of separation in a project such as this to keep the project truely decentralised. New components keep getting added to Github, and the Synthetics trading, as well as decentralized governance is live on testnet. Link: https://synthetics.cap.finance/#/
Contracts for Governance on testnet: 0x5a037422532492E8A69b5AFBFfc21c68a9C4031E
and: 0x755d13Fd88B238fC6F585a67c54aDbd88133bb5C

Today there was a change made to the governance, by using decentralized governance with success on testnet.

Just think of how easy it would be able to control BTC if there was a face attached…how many of us wouldn’t want to know who Satoshi really is, but there are times, for the advancement of things such as what this protocol could bring for the world of Defi, and the things people could build on top, that its best if it was community built, and a degree of separation for some respects. Right now anyone can contribute to the project through Github.
.
Regulators will truely have to adjust to the reality of something that can be launched and governed in a decentralized fashion, not the other way around.

#9

In either case, the project is too green for a Bancor whitelisting. It is not enough to just be a ‘good project’, it has to be field-proven. A listing on Bancor should be viewed as a project milestone; it is an accolade that the Bancor community views the token as a premium asset. That is simply not the case here.

I am not proposing to blackball it; I would be very happy to reconsider the project at a later date after it has a stable foundation underneath it. But not a moment before.

4 Likes