Let the voters decide i guess… I do not see a point or any benefit here other than to Badger holders… but we are trying to improve BNT
If the liquidity is low, then the arbitrage will have to be massive to be executed…
The idea is to have enough liquidity / the right fee to where arbitrage can be frequent / generate volume.
This doesn’t work at small scale.
And IF this is something that works… bancor can monopolize the amm space for these tokens… and the volume that comes from this arbitrage.
What do you define as liquidity low? I do not see you giving any numbers just posing generalities , literally you could do a pilot play with 250k in each pool and that is plenty to execute most Arbs as a starting point and see if there is anything feasible here which I am telling you there is not.
With lower levels of liquidity, the spread will have to be larger for any arbitrage to make sense…
This is because of gas prices / pool fees.
The idea is to make frequent arbitrage a thing… by having low slippage. It takes less volatility to create arb op.
I am not a fan of granting rewards for this pool. It seems much more like something that badger/digg folks want because it benefits them a lot (token they are holding anyways is now printing them free APY) but it benefits BNT as a whole very little.
Crypomessiah is making the case that this is an experiment that could maybe end up benefiting BNT. But its far from a certain thing. We cannot have bonus rewards forever and their job is to help bootstrap the ecosystem. There are many other projects which offer BNT much more value and rewards should be conserved for them.
That’s a fair argument…
And yes, this is a proof of concept.
IF it works, then there are tons of interest bearing tokens that we can monopolize in a similar fashion.
If it doesn’t… well that’s the risk here.
Great y’all got me! I’m new to bancor but you partnered with something I believe in so let’s make a goal…
Will the badger-team incentivize this pool? If not, that imply they do not believe in this concept. It’s something new that could potentially work. However, base on current activity on the bBadger/bDigg pool…too much risk for BNT holder with so little return. The risk/reward not worth it. Might as well take the LM reward and add it to other higher yield pool… example promote existing snx/yfi/aave pool to large cap. Will support this proposal only IF badger-team also has incetivize program on their side for this pool.
yeah totally agree… i think you are getting my point here… and i like the question of the team incentivizing the pool or having more skin in the game…
This proposal adds no value to the bancor community and it’s discouraging that it has even any backing. What value do bancor holders derive from backing tokens that are otherwise 100% illiquid? This feels like a scheme at the expense to BNT holders. In fact it is likely a scheme. Vote No!
Hey Crypto Messiah,
Love to have you in the community.
The Rook proposal was a real good one and we’re definitely happy to have them in the community!
I don’t agree with this vote, however. Like it was mentioned in the Telegram, there are quite a lot of unknowns at the moment. I don’t see enough hard numbers to back up this proposal.
Thus taking such a choice based on assumptions seems, a bit risky imo.
Unfortunately, I have to vote against the proposal as it stands. If you were to turn in a new proposal with better economic incentives / more clear numbers, I would love to reconsider.
The current model is working. I see no reason to expand to this unproven arbitrageur farming model. Too much risk and only to the benefit of people who would hold these tokens regardless.
This is a very poor idea. We should not be handing out big rewards to an illiquid pool in hopes that they will come over. If we should really run such an experiment, it should be done on a much smaller scale. We don’t need bbadger nor bdigg, and we shouldn’t try to outcompete nonsustainable yield returns from these platforms. Let them run dry and they flock to Bancor in time.
I’m disappointed to even see such a proposal arise. Particularly from you, @Cryptomessiah.
Don’t be ashamed of me. I’m a risk taker.
I was hoping that others would see this as an opportunity to take a risk that could pay off big time.
No need for that man. Let’s keep it mature here.
The time for words is over. You’re going to live up to your name and get crucified.
I voted against for now. It is too soon for LM rewards given that this got whitelisted a few weeks ago. We need more data before the community can make an informed decision on either of these two tokens.
Would folks here be more amenable to this proposal if the Badger Dao were to add Badger and Digg rewards to the respective pools for some duration? Or is the opposition more than putting up rewards would resolve as in the parameters need to be modified, i.e. coinvestment levels?
I also will sadly oppose this proposal, as much as i like badger and digg it seems rather detrimental to the protocol from a asset utilization view. however my bigger concearn here is that elastic supply tokens tend to generate huge impermanent loss for liqudity providers which would be passed on to the protocol. also i think there might be something iffy with rebase tokens inside the bancor model IL protection but i can’t quite wrap my mind around it, leaving it for someone else to think about, if u achieve IL protection for a rebase tokens and it rebases down, are u still covered for the same amount of tokens ? if so there could be something game breaking there @mbr