Re: BIP28. Not impressed with how quickly commitment to the recovery percentage has dropped from 100% to (no less than) 90%. Is there no way for the protocol to just eat the cost and automate the conversion procedure, rather than requiring manual intervention every time?
Re: BIP29. In a recent proposal about adjusting the vortex fee share, we were told that we can’t reduce the vortex to 10% on the DAI pool; “since the vortex is a global parameter, if changed, it affects all pools in the same way”. That means that no individual pool can be adjusted according to its deficit state, and all v2/v3 LPs keep giving virtually all their fees to the protocol, gaining no benefit from remaining as LPs. So if the v2/v3 vortex is superceded by a universal Carbon+v2/v3 vortex, doesn’t that mean there’s even less chance of v2/v3 LPs ever having the fee share adjusted to a beneficial ratio again? So there’ll be even less incentivisation for any existing LPs to remain LPs as soon as their deficit reaches tolerable levels.
It sounds like if the universal/standardised vortex takes over, existing LPs lose 100% of all their fees earned (bringing v3 LPs in line with v2), and the only person who benefits from fees is the manual function caller, who wouldn’t earn the fees in their choice of TKN even if its an existing LP calling the function. If that’s the case, then I don’t see the net benefit in forcing v2/v3s into the Carbon vortex under a standardisation, rather than maintaining as is and having Carbon run its own separate vortex.