So... has there been any discussion about changing WBTC/LINK/etc LM rewards?

As we all know, there has been recent drama concerning the decision (or lack thereof) of the DAO to adjust LM rewards on some of these pools.

The issue isn’t really about the LM rewards themselves - it’s about the promise but lack of follow through from the foundation with regards to looking into reduction, or change, etc. It’s about the decision to just slap on the same proposal because we hadn’t taken the time to re-visit it.

So… THIS time - are we discussing this? Where are the foundations efforts to address this concern? Or in 2 months time, are we going to get hit again with the exact same proposal of blanket extending everything as is?

2 Likes

Some discussion on halving the LM rewards for the stable pools has already happened and a proposal is up for vote right now:

This post can be used to debate and assess the community’s thoughts on the LM rewards for the LINK, WBTC and ETH pools.

However, LM rewards won’t expire until 63 days from now. I suggest waiting for more info on V3 before making a decision.

Perhaps restarting the debate around 1 month before the rewards expire is sensible?

1 Like

Hi Tiago,

"However, LM rewards won’t expire until 63 days from now. I suggest waiting for more info on V3 before making a decision.

Perhaps restarting the debate around 1 month before the rewards expire is sensible?"

I very much disagree which is the reason I am making this post. The whole drama last month was because it had been left too late, and there was not enough time to discuss a reasonable change. To again leave it with not enough time to make decisions would be very poor DAO management. I’m honestly shocked a discussion post wasn’t created by the team immediately following the implementation of the latest vote, let alone in the month since then.

V3 is not going to be here in the next 63 days. As great as the front-facing team are, and while I’m sure the devs are fantastic, all we have for evidence is the last 6 months of slow output and delays. New trading UI for example has been being worked on for around 5 months at this point which, as much as you want to account for standard delays in software dev, is disappointing, especially in this space. It is wishful thinking to think we will have much information on V3 before we need to make a decision on the next round of rewards. We need to discuss it now.

Why on earth are the team so absent in DAO discussion? As much as you want to call this a decentralised organisation, and say the members of the DAO should take responsibility - in reality, it’s not. To my understanding there is a 50+ person team on payroll currently who are supposed to be taking the lead, and they have enough voting power to put through any decision they like. Their absence in bringing this discussion forward in good time after the drama which was caused exactly because there wasn’t enough time last time is just mind boggling.

@mbr - Where are the rest of the team? Where are the devs being active in the community? Why does it seem like no one at the foundation is taking responsibility for things like this? Why do we only ever hear from you and Nate, who are busy enough already? We can’t expect you to handle everything, so where are the other devs participating in discussions like this?

IMO the lack of organisation, transparency, and clarity around this issue and issues like it is really poor community management. There is a huge black box with the entire dev team encased inside it which the community at large is completely blind to. It would be totally fine if everything was running smoothly, but it’s not. We are stumbling over large decisions last minute with exactly one person from the foundation contributing his opinions to the DAO.

@yudi @ashachaf please, start taking more responsibility for what is going on in the DAO. Please encourage devs to talk to us and share their views. If there is a bunch of this already going on behind the scenes - then TELL US. Talk to us. Literally all we have is Mark, who is obviously amazing but is not a dev.

3 Likes

Hey,

Thanks for opening up this discussion, I think it’s an important one.

I just want to make it clear - I (and the rest of the core contributors) am very involved with anything that happens - you can find us on the weekly community calls and raise any (specific) questions.
The reason why I - and other members - are less active in the discussions is simply because we work around the clock on making this platform the best platform in existence, and as long as the discussions seem to go well, I don’t think my (official) participation is needed everywhere - there are enough stakeholders in these discussions and the DAO seems to operate well.

You can always find me in the different channels if there’s a specific topic you’d like to discuss (like this one).

Mark and myself always discuss these things and try to come to an agreement internally before he joins the discussions here, simply to keep the process more efficient - he generally represents the direction we think is the better one.
I also think it’s more relevant to keep these discussions around the product - the technical implementations are generally not as interesting (other than technical limitations that need to be clear).

As a side note - the governance token is one of the most evenly distributed tokens in the space and the core contributors don’t have enough voting power to put through any decision we like, that’s just a misconception. The Bancor DAO is much healthier than others and we are very proud of it.

Now to the issue at hand - the last thing we do is sit idle and support extending the rewards forever by default. We had countless discussions about it - both internally and externally with community members in the different channels, as well as on the community calls.
Personally I think it’s not the right time to make huge changes - just before releasing a new major (biggest?) version - but I also think it’s not the end of the world if rewards were to decrease a bit now.
I do want to emphasize that there is in fact a technical cost to updating rewards now as the platform doesn’t support it in such a way - we can vote on stopping rewards on specific pools but it’s harder to reduce (or increase for that matter) rewards.
So this extra cost means more time we need to spend on the existing codebase as opposed to the new one.
We are working on a suggestion for a new LM plan but it’s still premature as we’re considering different directions and I believe we’ll have enough time to discuss it as one of the options before our big upcoming version.

Hope it makes things a bit more clear.

6 Likes

Yudi,

Thank you so much for your response. You have answered all of my concerns. I hope you understand why it was worrying not seeing much dev participation in public discussions, specific community call questions aside. Even just this one post from you is extremely impactful for us to see IMO. Thank you.

Your reasoning around technical limitations to adjusting rewards meaning it is not really worth doing given incoming V3 changes is completely agreeable.

4 Likes

Sure, no problem.

There is actually a vote right now to reduce LM rewards on the stable tokens. If that one passes, we’re gonna try to do that but we still need to figure out if it’s technically feasible without causing too many disruptions.

3 Likes

Could you shed some light on exactly why it’s so difficult? Please don’t be afraid to get technical–this is the Internet, we can do research!

2 Likes

Sure, it’s not super difficult but just expensive and time consuming. There’s just a single contract that handles LM and it keeps track of individual positions.

I’m simplifying it a bit, but rewards are calculated based on the time elapsed since the liquidity provider performed an action (added/removed liquidity) and the rewards rate.
If we simply change the settings, the new rate will be applied for the entire duration since the user performed the last action - not since we change it, so it will be somewhat retroactive.
If we want to do it properly, we need to record the “pending rate” for every liquidity provider - which requires identifying all these LPs and sending transactions that will update them, which can also get quite expensive - and only then change the rate.

Another issue is that the contract contains sanity checks to make sure a calculation bug doesn’t result in inflated rewards. This is an issue when we lower the rate since the sanity checks then expect total rewards to be lower, which won’t work since the total rewards will actually be higher, as the rewards were previously higher.

So it’s not impossible but it requires migration + deploying a new contract to increase the sanity limits.

4 Likes

To follow up what Yudi already answered, we work on the product interface front from different aspects to try and make the best use of our resources.

For example, there has been a big push to integrate limit orders by keeper dao to support the trading interface and our portfolio has been updated constantly to allow easier control and management over your protected positions.

We might have been a bit quieter than usual in the last few weeks as a result of the concentrated effort going towards Bancor V3.

That said, point is taken and as much as we are always available for questions, we will make the effort to be more proactive in our approach.

Thanks for helping us improve.

6 Likes

Thanks so much for your response Asha.

1 Like