Of course it is possible - the automaton will just not vote for it.

1 Like

Proposal: Whitelist MASK with 100K BNT Co-Investment

The MASK whitelist proposal includes a link to a Twitter profile that was created April 2021. That account has 50 followers, and recently tweeted that a “new” Twitter account was created, that predates the one in the proposal by 2 years. Neither have acknowledged the vote on Bancor. A broader search of the crypto social networks reveals very little engagement. The Automaton will vote AGAINST the whitelisting of MASK until the vote is acknowledged. Such an acknowledgement is not unprecedented for the “main” Mask Twitter account (e.g. here, here, here, here).

Proposal: Whitelist MFI + 100k BNT Co-Investment

The obligatory Tweet from Marginswap is confirmed. The team also helped to improve the visibility of the proposal by retweeting its author’s announcement after it appeared on Discourse. This satisfies the minimum engagement requirements, and the Automaton will vote FOR the whitelisting status of MFI.

Proposal: Whitelist InstaDapp (INST) with 900K BNT Co-Investment

A representative from InstaDapp was a guest on the most recent Bancor Community call. A community member has Tweeted about the propsoal, which was retweeted 13 times, although not by the main Instadapp account. Looking through the main account material, it is not immediately obvious that they would be restricted from promoting the proposal. As with the MASK proposal, the Automaton will vote AGAINST the whitelisting status until main Twitter account has acknowledged the proposal.

Proposal: Whitelist iExec RLC (RLC) Plus 200K BNT Co-Investment Limit - 2nd Attempt

The iExec RLC team have been much more involved with this second proposal for whitelisting status than the first time around. Their new head of community engagement was a guest speaker on the most recent community call, and the main Twitter account has bee highly proactive in advertsing and supporting the proposal (see: here, here, here, here, here). The token is a standard from the OpenZeppelin Library, and the tokenomics design is similar to other blockchain services, such as Chainlink, where the native token is also the default medium of exchange for access to the service provided (in this case, computing resources). Overall, the project is sound, the token is apparently quite secure, the co-investment is very reasonable. The Auotomaton will vote FOR whitelisting status of iExec RLC.

Proposal: FARM LM Time Extension

The Automaton’s voting logic is rigorously enforced. The only LM extensions the Automaton will vote FOR are LINK, WBTC, ETH, and the USD stablecoins.

if PriorLM == False and StrategicPool == True:
Elif PriorLM == True and TKN == 'LINK', 'WBTC', 'ETH', 'USDC', 'DAI', 'USDT':

It should be noted that the FARM pool is among the most performant on Bancor, and it would certainly make sense to continue supporting it with an extended LM program. Remember - the objective of the Automaton is vote consistently and predictably; users who have assigned their voting power to the Automaton can always vote manually, even without removing their delegation. Therefore, the Automaton will vote AGAINST extending the rewards on FARM. It is worth noting that it is unlikely this will impact the outcome of the vote. At the time these posts were created, the FARM LM proposal was up to 99.85% in favor, and 30.3% quorum.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 350K BNT on DIGITALAX Monavale (MONA) Pool

The DIGITALAX community have been extrememely supportive, and enthusiastic about their pool on Bancor, and about DeFi in general. The team was highly vocal about raising the visibility and profile of Bancor among their community both on Twitter both during their whitelisting campaign, and now for the co-investment increase. Their community integration in defi seems sincere; for example, the Bancor/Chainlink comradery has inspired a T-shirt design recently. Altogether, this is a good project with a strong community and good fundamentals. The co-investment increase is relatively minor, and the Automaton will vote FOR increased single-sided staking capacity.

1 Like

Proposal: Whitelist ($APW) with 250K BNT Co-investment

The APW token contract is upgradeable, and therefore incompatible with whitelisting status.

Proposal: Whitelist WETH with 2M BNT Co-Investment Limit

This is a decision the Automaton has never really had to make. WETH doesn’t have a community or a team that would care much about whitelisting on Bancor. However, the token is most certainly trustworthy and doesn’t present any security risk. However, there are technical issues to having a pool for WETH, as it conflicts with Bancor’s built-in WETH unwrapper and limit-order functions. The consequences are a little opaque, and not addressed in the proposal; this is not the author’s fault, but something the developer team should probably discuss with the community prior to the vote. To err on the side of caution, while also remaining adherent to the Automaton’s voting rules, the Voting Automaton will vote AGAINST whitelist status for WETH.

Proposal: Increase RLC-BNT Fees to 0.2%

The proposed change to the swap fee of RLC is within range:

if pool = ETH and 0.05% < proposedFee < 0.15%:
    vote = FOR
elif pool != ETH and 0.1% < proposedFee < 1.0%:
    vote = FOR
    vote = AGAINST

Therefore, the Automaton will vote FOR the proposed increase to the pool fee.

Proposal: Whitelist Ferrum Network (FRM) with 100K BNT Co-investment

The main Ferrum Network Twitter account has publicly acknowledged the proposal (here, here), as has their Philippines Twitter account (here). The token contract has no discernible security flaws, and is among the most evenly distributed tokens we have encountered. There are about 6,000 addresses with FRM, and the top wallet has only 4.79%; most of the top wallets are exchange accounts. The proposed co-investment is reasonable, and the project seems sincere in its commitment to developing a product for mass-adoption. Importantly, there is an FRM token buy-back scheme that the team has declared will utilize the Bancor pool for a significant portion of that trade volume. The Voting Automaton will vote FOR the whitelisting status of FRM.

Proposal: Increase Co-Investment Limit in the BAT pool by 400K BNT

This is another curve ball for the Automaton logic. In general the Automaton is liberal on co-investment increases; if there is a lack of space, a highly engaged community, and the token is secure, then it is usually an easy decision. In this case all of those things are true - but there is an open question as to the value of a deeper BAT pool. The BAT pool on Bancor is already the deepest anywhere, and by a wide margin. It could be argued that we play into our strengths by continuing to grow this pool and activate the BAT community; however, it is also true that pools can be too deep, where the IL liability starts to outstrip the earnings. To remain congruent with the stated voting rules, the Automaton will vote FOR the increased co-investment in this case; however this has prompted me to revise the Automaton’s voting logic, and I will post an update to the co-investment increase category later this week.

Proposal: Extend Snapshot voting indefinitely with anti-tampering contingency plan

Total no-brainer. Snapshot has been essential to maintaining momentum, and there is as-of-yet no reason to become wary of the legitimacy of the Snapshot system. The community and developer team have been in frequent contact with Fabien, and the experience has been really outstanding. Thankfully, the author has included relevant details concerning the actions that should be taken by the DAO in the event of a security breach on the Snapshot servers, or an otherwise comprised vote is detected. The proposal builds on BIP12 and its addendum, and doesn’t introduce anything that could be considered radical, or concerning. The Automaton will vote FOR the extension of Snapshot indefinitely, or until the DAO decides to rescind its authority.


Proposal: Enable LM rewards on EDEN-BNT pool plus 400K Co-Investment Increase in exchange for an EDEN slot

This has been a polarizing proposal. A prominent BancorDAO member, @DarkKnight has provided a detailed overview of his objections both directly on the Discourse post, and via Twitter. Perhaps the most concerning data are those concerning the way the Eden network prioritizes transactions. The Dune query reveals a peak of only 10% of Bancor transactions actually benefiting from the prioritization, but which is currently closer to 1%. In addition to the points raised by @DarkKnight, there is also an abuse vector associated with the current Eden network implementation, as described in this Tweet by MEV Alpha Leak:

Alpha leak for searchers seems I’m too lazy to implement this myself:

  1. You implement a personal converter on BancorNetwork
  2. Wrap all your DEX-arbs using this converter so that tx[‘to’] = BancorNetwork
  3. You’ll get 28% of DEX arbs for free without paying any bribe to miners.

I previously engaged with the community over how the Automaton would be likely to vote, via the thread on @DarkKnight’s Twitter (here, and here). In short, I have said that so long as there is a demonstrable benefit to the health of the protocol (e.g. increased trade volumes), then a liquidity mining proposal would be supported; the Automaton is apolitical, relatively impartial, and should be as predictable as possible. This is an interesting case, because at face-value the value to the protocol is clear. However, the points raised by @DarkKnight certainly call some of that benefit into question. Moreover, the “expected” behavior of the Automaton, in light of these criticisms and considering its conservative leanings, could be argued to be AGAINST. But is this a subjective decision?

The voting rules are due to be updated this week - both for co-investment increases, and now liquidity mining proposals. Using @DarkKnight’s example, there will be a new condition that if there is any credible, data-oriented arguments raised against a liquidity mining proposal with sufficient time for the proposal author to respond, AND if those specific concerns are not addressed on the proposal’s Discourse page prior to the vote being live, the Automaton will vote AGAINST by default.

It is important to understand that whatever the Automaton does, it is not a judgement against the EDEN project, or its team. In terms of engagement and potential collaboration, the EDEN team have proven highly dependable. Caleb from the Eden network has been a guest on our community call two weeks running, and has responded well to questions. I personally think that the problem of MEV is one worth addressing, and the solution offered by Eden is among the most user-friendly, passive technologies on offer. Thus, the complicated nature of the Automaton’s voting decision is realized. Given only the information presented in the proposal, what would a reasonable person expect the Automaton to do, given the description I have provided for its behavior?

  1. The proposal in absolutely bare bones; 2 sentences and 3 dot points.
  2. Despite the minimal nature of what is presented, no supporting arguments are provided whatsoever.
  3. However, the author has followed-up with an additional 6 dot points in response to @DarkKnight’s critique. Importantly, reference to trading volume is included for the first time (why wasn’t this part of the orginal proposal!?). The other comments are well communicated and could certainly be judged an adequate response.

There is no good answer. When in doubt, and in-line with the Automaton’s stated conservative liquidity mining politics, the default is clearly a vote AGAINST. This will serve as an important precedent, and help to refine the Automaton’s behavior. If any community members feel strongly that the Automaton did something unexpected here, I am very interested to hear from you.


Proposal to Whitelist ShapeShift FOX Token (FOX) with 100k Co-investment

The ShapeShift Twitter account has acknowledged the proposal here. There are no apparent security concerns associated with the FOX token, it is relatively well distributed, and the project is among the oldest to integrate directly with Bancor (see this Tweet from 2017). The level of confidence in the token and project is high, and the co-investment is very reasonable. The automaton will vote FOR whitelisting status of FOX.

Proposal: Whitelist Velas (VLX) with 100k BNT Co-investment

The Velas Twitter account has acknowledged the proposal twice (here, and here). The token distribution looks healthy, there are no overt security concerns associated with its contract, the team is non-anonymous, established as a startup in Switzerland. The Velas project objectives revolve around mass adoption of blockchain technology, through an EVM-compatible hybrid system that supports a range of products already.

The proposed co-investment is very high; the market cap of VLX is only $750K; the proposed co-investment could accommodate more than half the VLX supply at present. However, the token has an inflationary component, the future capacity is certainly worth being mindful of. All things considered, a 100k co-investment is still tiny relative to the size of the protocol, and it is unlikely that such capacity will be exhausted any time soon.

In sum, the VLX token is certainly whitelist-able. The co-investment is high relative to its market cap, but not prohibitively so. The Automaton will vote FOR the whitelist status of VLX.

Temperature Check on Potential Blockchains for Deployment Following V3 release

The automaton will vote with the current profile:

  1. Solana, 2. Avalanche, 3. Cardano, 4. Polkadot, 5. Fantom, 6. Binance Smart Chain, 7. Terra
1 Like

Proposal: Whitelist SPELL token (SPELL) Plus 1M BNT Co-Investment Limit

While the SPELL team has not yet publicly acknowledged the proposal via Twitter, there is an open channel of communication open between them and the Bancor core contributors. Moreover, Nate Hindman’s Tweet about the IL exposure on Sushiswap garnered some helpful attention, and others in the DeFi community have commented on the suitability of SPELL for whitelist status out of their own volition (see: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). The community sentiment is overwhelmingly positive. The project is similar to MakerDAO, in the sense that issues debt/over-collateralized stablecoins, (MIM).

The team distribution of SPELL is a little on the high side, 30%, half of which is to be issued over the next year - which is a little fast. The proposed co-investment is reasonable; the total market capitalization of SPELL is nearly $1B, so $4M in co-investment is far from obscene. There are no apparent security risks or incompatibilities with either the project or the token. The distribution metrics are less than perfect, but not alarming. The Automaton will vote FOR SPELL whitelist status.

Proposal: Whitelist Auctus Token (AUC) with 100k Co-investment

AUC is among the veteran token projects, and a longtime friend of the Bancor Protocol. A liquidity pool for AUC was established in 2018 (see: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and many, many more). It was big deal to be part of the birth of DeFi, and it is exciting to be welcoming the Auctus team and project back to enjoy the benefits and features of v2.1. The team has acknowledged the proposal on Twitter, which satisfies the prerequisite. The AUC token is well distributed and established, very secure, and has no compatibility problems with the Bancor ecosystem. The project has pivoted from pension/retirement products, to American options (in contrast to European options, such as offered by UMA). The market capitalization is relatively low ($3.5M), and the proposed co-investment is appropriate for the scale of its economy. The Automaton will vote FOR whitelist status of the AUC token.

Proposal: Extend LM Rewards on Aave Pool (2nd extension)
Proposal: Extend LM Rewards on SNX Pool (2nd extension)
Proposal: eRSDL Open Market Purchases via Bancor
Proposal: Extend LM rewards on Stable Coin Pools (USDT, USDC, DAI) for 12 weeks
Proposal: Reallocate LM rewards on EDEN pool to 100% BNT - 0% EDEN

The Automaton’s logic on LM extensions is as follows:

if PriorLM == False and StrategicPool == True:
Elif PriorLM == True and TKN == 'LINK', 'WBTC', 'ETH', 'USDC', 'DAI', 'USDT':

The Automaton will vote as follows:

  • AGAINST extending rewards on AAVE
  • AGAINST extending rewards on SNX
  • FOR the eRSDL deal, involving open market purchasing of eRSDL in connection with its Saas licensing fee proxy program.
  • FOR extending rewards on USDC, USDT, and DAI.
  • FOR reallocation of LM rewards on EDEN.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 300k on the FRM pool

The automaton will vote FOR an increased single-sided capcity in the FARM pool.

1 Like

Proposal: Whitelist index (INDEX) with 200K BNT Co-investment

@OverAnalyser was present on the most recent community call, and gave a general overview on what is clearly a sincere project with reasonable goals and serving a clearly defined purpose. INDEX is a governance token that is essentially responsible for the management of the coop (standard governance token), which oversees a collection of indices and a margin lending product. The token itself is vanilla erc20, the distribution schedule looks standard, and overall it appears like a good whitelisting candidate.

The Index Coop Twitter account has not yet acknowledged the whitelisting proposal. There is about 1 day left on the proposal at the time of writing. The Automaton generally requires acknowledgement on social media to support whitelisting. The Index Coop Twitter account has tweeted about its own governance affairs (see here, here, here); it is reasonable to assume it could raise awareness for this one too. The Automaton will vote in favor of whitelist status for INDEX once the proposal is acknowledged on Twitter.

Proposal: Whitelist ($APW) / 250K BNT Co-investment (2nd attempt)

This is the second attempt at whitelisting APWine. Previously the Automaton voted against whitelist status, owing to a contract upgradability issue. This was the only reason the Automaton did not vote in favor of the last proposal.

The APWine team have now addressed all relevant security problems, and the token is noweligible for whitelisting. The APWine Twitter account has supported their proposal with two tweets (here, and here), and has received positive community feedback (here). The Automaton will vote FOR whitelisting APWine.

(BIP) Increase Vortex Burner to 15%

The Bancor Vortex is a feature unique to Bancor, which provides liquidity providers access to a kind of fast credit, or alternatively, an interest- and liquidation-free leveraged liquidity provisioning product. Use of the Vortex by LPs creates an opportunity for the Bancor Protocol to reduce its liabilities and increase its own assets by using a small portion of swap revenue to buy and destroy vBNT. The rate at which this burn is performed has been a source of heated debate. When the Vortex was established, it was espoused that a target 20% of swaps should be used to fuel the vortex burn; however, such a target should be met slowly, and after the bootstrapping phase of the protocol was completed. The Vortex was launched with a 5% burn rate, and was increased to 10% by the DAO in June; a proposal to increase the burn rate to 20% was also considered at that time.

All things considered, an increase from 10% - 15% is not dramatic (compared to 5% - 10%, or 5% - 20%), and the current proposal has not received the same level of opposition (or any noticeable opposition) by the community. The Automaton is stated as being Liberal for protocol upgrades and maintenance categories, to which this proposal ought to belong. Taken together, the community sentiment, and health of the protocol generally, suggest an increased burn rate would likely be a welcomed change, or at the very worst a benign change.

The Automaton will vote for an increase in the Vortex burn rate to 15%.

Proposal to Whitelist Etherisc DIP Token (DIP) with 200K BNT Co-investment

The Etherisc team have Tweeted about the proposal (twice). The DIP community has also been vocal about their ambition to establish a whitelisted pool on Bancor for some time. The list of tweets is unusually long, and overwhelmingly positive (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and many, many more.)

DIP has previously been considered by the BancorDAO for whitelist status on multiple occasions. It was first considered in February 2021, when voting was still conducted entirely on-chain. It has also appeared on Snapshot twice before the current proposal, in March 2021, then in April 2021. In all of these voting periods, the supermajority requirements were met, but not the quorum requirements. The current proposal is slightly non-identical, as the proposed co-investment has been increased.

The Automaton will vote FOR whitelist status of the DIP token.


$INDEX Tweet confirmed from the official account, and also from the proposal’s author. The Automaton will vote FOR whitelisting status of $INDEX.


Proposal: Whitelist RAILGUN (RAIL) with 75k Co-Investment

The mandatory Tweet from the Railgun main twitter account is confirmed. Apparently, community engagement is high (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and more). The proposal also received a large amount of attention, but not suspiciously high - there may have been some spambot activity (on Twitter also), but importantly the voices of real community members are perfectly identifiable. Whether or not 100% of the engagement is organic is besides the point - it got Bancor in front of the faces of some new potential community members in a positive way. However, it is a little weird.

The proposal also attracted someone whom the DAO has never met before, @imchinese, who joined our Discourse page apparently to criticize the Railgun project in a public forum. While delivered completely without tact, and in an apparently deliberate, inflammatory manner, the comments should be considered carefully before whitelisting status is granted.

So, I have combed through some of the key accusations leveled against Railgun by @imchinese, @Winston-Smith and @Richard, and comment on them here:

Is Railgun a scam? Probably not.
A link to an apparent news vendor for crypto projects was provided; CryptoVigilanteNews claims to “keep you informed and up to date on the latest scams and nefarious figures within the blockchain space.” However, it doesn’t seem credible as a source. It’s Twitter profile has been active since August, but has only garnered 43 followers during the interim. The article reads more like a 4chan or Reddit post, than a news blog. However, despite the author’s lack of writing skill, and hyperbolic FUD-like manner, some of the arguments are very convincing. The concerning details are almost lost in the meandering ramble of the blog post - but not lost entirely. An apparent demonstration of the lack of privacy is presented (readers are encouraged to determine for themselves if the demonstration is sufficient to warrant suspicion), attention is paid to the founder’s alias, Emmanuel Goldstein (a character from George Orwell’s novel, “1984”) and his alleged AI-generated portrait, among other things. It should be noted that a pseudonym and fake profile picture are not out of the ordinary for crypto projects.

It should be noted that the proposal’s author, @ThePerpetual is an active and respected member of the Bancor community. That the proposal was created and submitted by one of our own makes the likelihood of a deliberate rug pull exploit even more remote.

It has to be said that this proposal, the obvious and non-obvious FUD surrounding it, the spam it attracted both on Twitter and our Discourse page, has been weird. In light of everything, it seems at least prudent to postpone the whitelisting of Railgun until a respectful dialogue on these topics can be established. A representative of the Railgun team/community was present on the last Bancor community call. It is reasonable to expect that if this attempt is unsuccessful, that we might invite them back to allay these concerns in an open discussion.

The Automaton will vote AGAINST the whitelisting status of Railgun until clarity regarding the criticisms it received during the voting period can be addressed.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 2.1M BNT on the ROOK-BNT pool

The Automaton will vote FOR increased single-sided capacity in the ROOK pool.

Temperature Check: Rebrand Bancor as a part of v3’s marketing efforts

This proposal doesn’t contain any actionable items, other than to acknowledge that marketing is important, and that Bancor should have better marketing. While I think this is a non-controversial opinion - and one the Automaton would certainly agree to, the proposal spends a lot of time addressing Bancor’s logo and name - which are probably the least important aspects of an informed marketing strategy. The proposal is also suggesting that meme culture and the attention of Crypto Twitter is essential - whereas evidence suggests that demographic is quickly bored; appeals made to their satirical sensibilities or their appetite for new flavors of the week is likely to win their favor for only a short while. Bancor can, should, and will have better brand development and management, but I doubt it will require a meme logo.

All of that said, I think a mini-brand like BancorSwap is a good idea. The following text is attributed to Z of Harvest Finance, who has articulated my view better than I could.

…using a completely new name will lose the ability to leverage Bancor’s brand. For the same reason you’ve got

Samsung TV
Samsung Watch
Sony PlayStation
Sony Music

These brands leverage their names to bootstrap their new products vs. starting from scratch:

Super Forte TV
Spaghani Watch

Sushi is indeed throwing nuddles on the wall with their kashi, naruto, sakura, Orochimarubox. I have no freaking clue what their products are about. I’d learn from their mistakes and lean towards

Bancor Swap
Bancor DAO (see?)
Bancor Pay
Bancor Earn
Bancor Learn
Bancor [insert_any_top_keyword]


*Trying to reinvent the wheel might be very costly. *

Then with each new product, you not only get the bootstrap fame of the core ‘Bancor’ brand but also of its existing army of products. Google Maps, Google Docs, Google Mail.

The Automaton is voting AGAINST as a general statement of disagreement with the tone and specific arguments raised by @DarkKnight. However, Bancor’s marketing can obviously be improved (and it is being improved).

Proposal: Increase Bancor’s Bug Bounty Payout on Immunefi

This proposal appeared on Snapshot prematurely. The Automaton is Voting FOR, to indicate that this is how it will likely vote when the proposal appears on Snapshot in its final form, and following the mandatory wait time.


I apologise for the brevity of the breakdown this week.

Proposal: Extend Liquidity Mining Rewards for WBTC, LINK and ETH pools

The Automaton is Voting FOR.

Proposal: Increase Bancor’s Bug Bounty Payout on Immunefi

The Automaton is voting FOR.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 2.1M BNT on the ROOK-BNT pool

The Automaton is voting FOR.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 1M BNT on QNT (Quant) Pool

The Automaton is voting FOR.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 1M BNT on RPL (RocketPool) Pool and set pool fees at .2%

The Automaton is voting FOR. It is not clear that the proposed change in the fee is beneficial, but certainly worth the experiment.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 1M BNT on MANA (decentraland) Pool and set pool fees at .2%

The Automaton is voting FOR. In this case the increase in the pool fee is easily justified.

Proposal: Whitelist ENS with 50k BNT co-investment

The Automaton will wait for the ens.eth Twitter account to acknowledge the proposal before voting FOR.

2nd Vote - Proposal: Whitelist RAILGUN (RAIL) with 75k Co-Investment

After the drama surrounding the initial proposal, the representatives from the Railgun project reappeared on the Bancor community call to discuss the relevant talking points. Things are still weird; the bot-like activity on the Discourse thread is unusual. A plethora of new accounts appeared to comment with vacuous, supportive commentary. It’s just too weird; the Automaton is voting AGAINST.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 500K BNT on TRAC (OriginTrail) Pool

The Automaton is voting FOR.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 1M BNT on REQ (Request Network) Pool

The Automaton is voting FOR. Request has been part of the Bancor ecosystem since the old days.

Proposal: Increase MKR-BNT Fees to 0.2% (from .1%)

The Automaton is voting FOR.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 700K BNT on MPH (88MPH) Pool

The Automaton is voting FOR. It has been truly awesome to watch the 88MPH project grow and mature. Their DAO is due to be bootstrapped soon, and growing the pool leading up to their full decentralization is well-timed.


Proposal: Whitelist Sator Token (SAO)

The Automaton will wait for the Sator Twitter account to acknowledge the proposal before voting FOR.


SAO Tweets have technically appeared (here and here). We are in contact with the Sator team, and will improve the proposal and community engagement for the next attempt through governance.

No Tweet from ENS - the Automaton will vote AGAINST, although it is not going to affect the outcome.


eRSDL LM extension proposal (2nd attempt)

The Voting Automaton’s default vote for LM extensions is AGAINST, for all but a handful of select tokens.

if PriorLM == False and StrategicPool == True:
Elif PriorLM == True and TKN == 'LINK', 'WBTC', 'ETH', 'USDC', 'DAI', 'USDT':

Proposal: Whitelist SHEESHA with 100k BNT co-investment

The mandatory tweet has been confirmed. The 100k co-investment is reasonable, given the liquidity that exists elsewhere. The token distribution is quite good; its has an interesting chain-specific supply model, which I suppose is to obfuscate complicated supply management. Whatever the reason, it’s not worrying. The litepaper is a little vague (par for the course, unfortunately), but essentially represents Sheesha Finance as a tokenized mutual fund. The team is Doxxed (positive), and its advisory board consists of both DeFi- and CeFi-leaning entities. The SHEESHA token is vanilla erc20. The Voting Automaton will vote FOR whitelisting SHEESHA finance.

Proposal: Increase Co-Investment Limit to 1M on ARCONA Pool

The Voting Automaton will vote FOR increasing the ARCONA pool capacity.

1 Like

Proposal: Whitelist Frax Share (FXS)

$FXS is the non-stable (volatile) governance token associated with Frax Finance; not to be confused with its algorithmic stablecoin, $FRAX. At this stage the Frax Finance project is quite well-established, with numerous sources of liquidity both on centralized exchanges and other DeFi protocols. The proposed co-investment is relatively modest, compared with the relative size of the liquidity elsewhere - which is fine. Having smaller pools is easier to tolerate in terms of risk than larger pools. The token is a vanilla erc20, straight out of the OpenZeppelin library, and does not represent any apparent security threats. The token distribution leaves a little to be desired; the top 2 wallets currently hold 68% of the token supply. This is not necessarily a blocker, and becomes more forgivable in light of the relatively low co-investment. The official Frax Finance Twitter account has not yet acknowledged the proposal. The Automaton will vote FOR whitelisting status of FXS as soon as this tweet is broadcast.

Proposal to whitelist DUSK with 50,000 BNT co-investment

DUSK is a zero-knowledge proofs project focused on developing confidential smart contracts and security tokens. It is its own blockchain, although without a functioning product at present. The testnet is due for launch in February 2022. While projects-in-development can be risky token offerings, the DUSK token has some redeeming properties already, that make whitelisting considerations slightly more lenient. The distribution of the token is quite good, and is present on both BSC and Ethereum, where it has established existing liquidity pools with decent volume/liquidity. DUSK is a supply-capped token, and a standard erc20 from the OpenZeppelin library. In general, layer1 tokens have a tendency to skyrocket in value, which presents a considerable IL risk. However, the asking co-investment is relatively small, and the token’s volatility is extreme - which is positive from a fee-earning perspective. DUSK is available on the major CEX exchanges, which certainly lends confidence. The Dusk Twitter account has acknowledged the proposal, which has already caught the attention of its community. Reception seems positive. More importantly, the DUSK team has agreed to bootstrap the pool with $50,000 of DUSK tokens. The Automaton will vote FOR whitelisting DUSK, and asks that the DAO consider a higher-than-average swap fee (e.g. 0.5%) early in the lifecycle of this pool.

Proposal: Activate Comment Box and Graph plugins on Snapshot
Proposal: Activate Abstain Feature 1

The Automaton will vote FOR both of these updates to the DAO’s use of Snapshot, and its new features. The Abstain feature has been in discussion since the formation of the DAO in October of 2020, and its availability is an awesome relief.


Thank you Mark, always appreciate the Votingautomaton’s take on the proposals!


Proposal to Whitelist Boba Network (BOBA) with 50,000 BNT co-investment

At this time, the Boba Network main Twitter account has yet to acknowledge the proposal via its main Twitter account. The Automaton will vote AGAINST until this condition is met.

Boba Network is another optimistic roll-up scaling solution for Ethereum and is linked to the OMG foundation via the Enya team. The Boba Network will continue to use ETH as the gas token, which is interesting. It is not entirely clear what the role of the $BOBA token is; the Boba Network website says that ti will have governance properties, and be used primarily for staking rewards, liquidity incentives and grants and funding. The exit process for Boba Network relies on community liquidity pools, allegedly allowing for a same-day transition from L2 back to L1. This arrangement is unusual, and it remains to be seen how the system will behave over longer time periods, and where the security vulnerabilities may be.

As the author points out, the $BOBA token poses a notable IL risk, as young chains have a tendency to garner significant interest during their debut period. The Boba Network ecosystem is small, but growing. A handful of dApps are available, including a few different DEXes, DeBank, and some NFT projects. If its popularity grows, the $BOBA token price could move as $MATIC or $AVAX did. Fortunately the token is already well-established, although there are some important details to note here. The $BOBA token was not tradable as recently as November 13th. The token distribution includes both an airdrop to OMG wallets, a community treasury, strategic investors and the team wallets. Nothing here is out of the ordinary - token unlocks commence after 12 months and continue unlock over 4 years, which is pretty standard.


All together it is a strange case for a chain token, as it is not used for gas. Instead it is an incentives/governance token of the most familiar variety. On one hand, new chain tokens have a propensity to moon hard, but $BOBA is unlike other chain tokens in the sense that it is not required by the chain, and so may be more even-tempered. The token distribution seems fine, and the project is most certainly serving a useful purpose and is backed by an excellent team with a clearly defined mission statement. The $BOBA token itself looks harmless from a contract perspective, although a handful of imposters are circulating. With the small trading liquidity contribution from the protocol (50k is reasonable), the proposal is positive on balance. The Automaton will vote FOR whitelisting of $BOBA only after the proposal is acknowledged on the team’s Twitter account.

1 Like

Proposal: Increase Trading Liquidity on PSP-BNT Pool to 200K BNT

The Automaton will vote FOR increasing the trading liquidity on PSP. The token is still new, but has had time to settle since the airdrop. The increase is concomitant with a liquidity contribution from the PSP treasury; historically these collaborations have been very positive.

Proposal: Whitelist Sator (SAO) token

Since the first attempt, the $SAO token whitelisting proposal has been markedly improved. The initial confusion surrounding the token supply has been largely addressed; the token is native to Solana, and is bridged to Ethereum via the Sator (Wormhole).

The token supply on Ethereum is moderately concerning. The second highest wallet balance (2,150,000 SAO) is roughly 20% of all tokens on Ethereum. This address is the sole liquidity provider on Uniswapv2 for the $SAO token.


This is not ideal; however, the total dollar value is relatively benign - about $82,000 on Uniswap (WETH + SAO), and another $222,000 remaining in the wallet in SAO + about $4,000 in ETH. Common sense suggests this could be a team wallet, charged with a little ETH to pay for gas, and some SAO to establish liquidity on Ethereum. While the liquidity is currently highly centralized, the total amount is not sufficient to raise alarm.

The top wallet on Solana commands 79% of the token supply. This is very high, even for a team wallet. However, seeing as this is the mint address, it likely includes allocation for things like community incentives, staking incentives, and exchange liquidity. It’s not easy to find information on the subject, but an ido document is available that sheds some light on the planned distribution, although not much. The author included the following text in the proposal:

The Sator project is high quality, with apps available via the Google Play store and the Apple app store. The ambition seems to be to commoditize audiences via SAO incentives and NFTs; in essence, becoming a pay-for-influence, or pay-for-views/clicks platform for content creators to bootstrap their media presence, and/or online following. It is an interesting use case, and whatever your personal feelings are about it, probably does serve a legitimate pain point.

In summary, the token ought to be whitelistable, but the centralized liquidity, and centralization of the token in general, is a big problem. The proposed trading liquidity is relatively low, and so long as it stays that way, is unlikely to be a threat to the Bancor system. Moreover, the proposal itself explicitly addresses the token supply and the ambitions to achieve distribution among users.

The automaton will vote FOR $SAO whitelist status after the main SATOR Twitter account acknowledges the proposal, and recommends the pool not be allowed to grow any deeper until the token supply has established a healthy equilibrium between Solana and Ethereum, and has found its way into the hands of more users.

1 Like

Proposal: TRAC-BNT fee change schedule and performance analysis

The Automaton was created to vote consistently and predictably, so that vote delegators have a reasonable chance of guessing which way the Automaton will vote, without having to refer to this page every week. The current rules are:

if pool = ETH and 0.05% < proposedFee < 0.15%:
    vote = FOR
elif pool != ETH and 0.1% < proposedFee < 1.0%:
    vote = FOR
    vote = AGAINST

To maintain consistency, the Automaton will continue to observe these rules. However, if the DAO passes the vote for the proposed $TRAC fee changes, I will consider that to be ample evidence that a change in the Automaton’s behavior for fee changes is warranted.

Therefore, the Automaton is voting AGAINST the proposed fee schedule, as it ventures outside of previously established bounds. If the DAO passes this decision, this voting logic will be revised.

1 Like

Sator $SAO Tweet confirmed.

1 Like

Boba Network $BOBA Tweet confirmed.

1 Like