Proposal: increase the trading liquidity limit in the TRAC pool to 1M BNT
Proposal Addendum: Incentivize users to migrate to V3 by matching token side LM rewards with up to 50,000 BNT per pool
Proposal: Change stablepool fees USDT/USDC/DAI to 1.0%, 1.0% and 1.5%, respectively
Proposal: Whitelist PHTR token with 100k BNT co-investment
Proposal: increase the trading liquidity limit in the TRAC pool to 1M BNT
The Automaton is waiting for the POOLZ main Twitter account to acknowledge the proposal.
Tweet confirmed. Token security looks great, distribution is better than most. It’s a unique use case for cryptocurrency, and seems to have a healthy community. The Automaton is voting FOR.
The Automaton is waiting for the DATA main Twitter account to acknowledge the proposal.
WOO are best friends; the Bancor community loves the WOO team, the project, and its community. More importantly, the WOO token looks to have stabilized, a 30% increase in the pool depth is well timed leading up to the release of Bancor3. The Automaton is voting FOR.
This is more of a formality. The RSR token was recently migrated to a new contract; the token security has not changed, the project has not changed. If the old RSR token was whitelisted, this one should be too. The Automaton is voting FOR.
Small increase for a solid project with a growing community. The Automaton is voting FOR.
The ICHI project has been gaining traction of late. It is becoming one of the more liquid governance tokens in the industry, and rightfully so. The ability to create and manage a stablecoin from a basket of USDC and a volatile cryptocurrency is a terrific use case. ICHI is among the most secure and financially sound stablecoin projects in the industry. The Automaton is voting FOR.
The automaton will vote FOR increasing the funding limits on SNX.
The automaton will vote FOR increasing the funding limits on DAO.
The automaton is voting FOR increasing the funding limits on wNXM. Importantly, the gradual increase is a significant component of the decision in this case. This is a large change, and it is probably a bad idea to commit to it all at once. Further, this proposal is part of an inter-DAO discussion with Nexus Mutual, regarding liquidity support for wNXM. These kinds of collaborations are positive for the industry overall, and help to support the DAO-owned liquidity narrative that strengthens Bancor’s mindshare.
This is a very large change (5×). The pool was only recently whitelisted, and it could be premature to commit this much liquidity at present. There is nothing apparently suspicious about the project, and the team has been incredibly proactive in supporting the pool on Twitter. Demand for staking seems natural. The automaton is reluctantly voting FOR this increase in funding. This example has reminded me that the automaton voting rules are overdue for an update. After B3 is released, I will revise the funding limit increase logic to help make the automaton behavior more predictable. Arbitrary 5× increases is probably still within reason, as the pool is small to start; however, a more precise decision making process on behalf of the automaton is certainly warranted.
As a general note, the Automaton is supporting most proposed fee changes by default; a data and analysis category has been established to help with visibility on these studies.
The vBNT pool is unique; it is the engine that drives the Bancor Vortex, while also providing the means to access a type of “fast credit” for BNT liquidity providers. The fee on this pool therefore affects both the protocol, and users to a similar extent. From the protocol perspective, the change is relatively benign. Although its ability to purchase vBNT is slightly encumbered, since it is itself a participant, the change also represents an improved ability to capture BNT directly. For the liquidity provider, it is a positive change. For the swapper, the change is noticeable, albeit minor. On balance, the proposal to change the fee is acceptable - and could be grounds to increase the funding on the pool in the future.
The counter-argument is that very few individuals are likely to benefit. The vBNT pool is among the most exclusive in the network. After speaking with members of the community, it seems as though speculation on the vBNT token itself - as opposed to its intrinsic vortex, or governance use cases - is potentially harmed. It is an awkward dichotomy.
Given the nearly uniform opposition to this proposal, as voiced by those who have reached out in private communications, the Automaton is voting AGAINST this fee change.
The automaton will vote FOR the proposed fee change.
The automaton will vote FOR the proposed fee change.
At the time of writing the Silo Finance main Twitter account has not yet acknowledged the proposal. More importantly, Silo Finance is heavily exposed to inflationary rewards programs such as those offered by the Convex/Curve ecosystem. It is poor timing for a whitelisting proposal for $SILO. The project itself is not dependent on these kinds of inflationary rewards; Silo Finance creates isolated money markets. The following activity is what is concerning:
" On Friday $CVX price declined, offering a good entry. Knowing that buying with treasury would take 10 days, we decided to buy with dev fund and ask the DAO to reimburse it."
The Automaton will vote AGAINST.
This is a large increase. The anecdotes provided by the Tempus co-founder and BD team, are worth taking into consideration:
As DAO liquidity provision on Bancor is likely becoming a key component of the narrative as the project moves into V3, this proposal has a high degree of confluence for both communities. The Automaton is voting FOR the increased capacity of the pool on v2.1.
Signata is a service provider that seeks to decentralize digital identity management and authentication. It is a product of Congruent Labs, an Australian startup with a focus on cyber security. Neither of the Congruent Labs or Signata Twitter accounts have yet acknowledged the proposal. In fact, the Congruent Labs Twitter account has been inactive for almost a year.
The SATA token is used to access the Signata service. It should be noted that the whitepaper makes frequent reference to a type of hardware device called a “YubiKeys”, a product of a separate company, yubico. The relationship between Signata and yubico is unclear. The yubico website states that: We are more than 300 people, representing about 30 different nationalities, and based in eleven countries; Sweden, USA, Germany, UK, France, The Netherlands, Chile, Argentina, Canada, Australia and Japan. This very well could include the Signata founders, but I can’t say for certain. If they are unaffiliated, then it should be noted that the strength of the Signata project is at least partly predicated on the success of the YubiKeys product, at present.
The timing of this proposal is potentially problematic. Roughly this time last year, the SATA project created a token lock-up program, while incentivizing Uniswap LPs via an airdrop mechanism. In and of itself, this is hardly an issue; however, the time wherein this proposal is being considered marks the end of a slow crescendo in token unlocking. The problem is that at present, there are just shy of 20,000,000 SATA tokens in circulation, whereas the unlocking schedule today suggests that number could increase by at least a factor of 3×, assuming those with the privilege to do so decide to unlock the tokens to which they are entitled.
Certainly, this may be motivating the project to establish a more robust liquidity base. It should be noted that the amount requested is relatively minor - 50k BNT would allow for a pool of approximately $200,000 depth, and alongside Uniswap v2 and v3, and Sushiswap, will give Bancor approximately 20% of the market’s SATA liquidity, and increase the available SATA liquidity by approximately 25%.
The SATA founder is the proposal’s author, who responded to a community member’s question about the team contributing liquidity directly to Bancor:
Given the timeliness of the proposal with respect to the token unlocking environment, this collaboration ought to be encouraged. The Automaton is voting AGAINST at present; but not without a recommendation for a follow-up proposal:
- The Signata team is encouraged to read the proposal from the SHIBGF team. A commitment to support their own liquidity incentives with external IL protection would make for a much more palatable whitelisting process.
- If a similar arrangement can be made, (and provided the proposal is acknowledged on Twitter), then the Automaton will vote FOR in the next proposal.
Twitter accounts have yet acknowledged the proposal. In fact, the Congruent Labs Twitter account has been inactive for almost a year.
We were unclear if we should publicly acknowledge the vote unless Bancor did, in case it wasn’t meant to be publicized - we have done so now on the SATA twitter account. We have added staff to the project marketing team to start posting more regularly, but will likely consolidate the accounts to simplify the management as we already know multiple accounts is just unwieldy when the content all comes from a single source anyway.
We recently announced a Signata Identity Group (Announcing the Signata Identity Group) - this is part of this consolidation effort underway to centralize messaging for the project and community it’s building.
The relationship between Signata and yubico is unclear
Yubico is their own entity. We are registered on their “works-with-yubico” service but only as a self-asserted service. Our goal is to just use their product as intended - open standards (PIV CCID cards) and open protocols, but our products are not exclusively dependent on them. We are building everything for web3 to add YubiKeys as an addon, not a prerequisite. Our real goal with using YubiKeys is to simply offer a cheaper alternative to products like Ledger’s and Trezors.
The problem is that at present, there are just shy of 20,000,000 SATA tokens in circulation, whereas the unlocking schedule today suggests that number could increase by at least a factor of 3×, assuming those with the privilege to do so decide to unlock the tokens to which they are entitled
The picture referenced is out of date. I’m guessing it was found from older blog posts, but anyway the project has changed to move the remaining uncirculating tokens into a DAO instead. There’s a mention of this in this blog post: Signata Project Update - September 2021 - it has to be taken at face value for now until the DAO is live and the tokens are moved into the DAO contract. The team is working with the AGFI project as their DAO is currently being audited (Aggregated Finance - CertiK Security Leaderboard) and the SATA DAO will be established as a fork from that audited DAO contract (which is predominantly derived from the Compound Finance DAO).
Hi @cl-tim! I am glad to have you commenting in our governance proposals
Indeed, the Signata official Twitter account has acknowledged the proposal.
That’s my mistake - thank you for correcting me. This is a significant change, and goes a long way to alleviating the concerns I raised. In this case the Automaton will change its vote to FOR.
I would like to keep in touch - perhaps we can set up a call to discuss Bancor V3, and all of the ways our DAOs can work together to help maintain healthy liquidity for the SATA token.
Thanks again for being an active participant on our governance channels - I sincerely appreciate it.
Smart MFG is a diverse project. The project marries NFTs with digital design and modelling, manufacturing, hardware and supply chain tokenization, and their website has an active NFT marketplace with content curated from a handful of early access creators. There is a lot here, spanning the full spectrum of hard utilitarian NFT philosophy, to collectible artwork and gaming aspects of the technology. The main MFG Twitter account has acknowledged the proposal is live. Moreover, the MFG token has been part of the Bancor ecosystem since 2018.
The role of the MFG (ERC20) token is not entirely clear. The text in the proposal is taken verbatim from the website, which is unfortunately not very helpful:
- Incentives. The MFG token will be used to incentivize new businesses to adopt their on-chain supply chain solution, and to incentivize users to provide liquidity with it.
- NFT marketplace. I would have thought this implied that the MFG token is the default currency of their NFT purchases, but this is apparently not the case - an NFT called " Galactic phantom" is currently being auctioned for 1.25 ETH (i.e. not MFG).
- The Vague Stuff. The supply chain tokenization is underscored with “NFT” in parentheses, suggesting this is not related to the MFG token. Supply Chain DeFi is mentioned, but it is not clear how the MFG token is part of this vision, or why it is necessary. The payments part is fine, but almost all ERC20 assets can fulfill that need.
Nothing here is too concerning given the requested BNT funding. However, before a trading liquidity increase is considered, there should probably a discussion in a public forum to discuss the MFG token and its purpose. The MFG liquidity mining campaign on Uniswap is also ending imminently:
The liquidity on Uni v3 may not be so sticky after the rewards period has ended; if there are liquidity providers who remain bullish on the MFG token after the period completes, it may not be too difficult to encourage them to grow the pool on Bancor with IL protection. Further, I would be interested to know if the project founders are interested in supporting their community with external IL protection on Bancor 3, and/or an auto-compounding rewards program over a longer period of time.
On balance, the MFG token is a reasonable whitelisting option. The distribution is better than par, the token has a long history, the team and project are high quality. This strikes me as a potential collaboration that the Bancor DAO would be excited to support. When asked about staking treasury assets, the author of the proposal replied:
The Automaton will vote FOR the whitelisting status of MFG.
The PHTR pool requires some commentary. It was first whitelisted in January with a 100K BNT funding limit; the proposal was authored by @Oliver, a co-founder of the project and the head of product development. The vote was passed with a 72.96% majority and 52.06% quorum.
Not quite a month later, a second proposal appeared from @Oliver seeking to 4× the trading liquidity with an increase in the funding limit to 400K BNT. The vote passed with a 100% supermajority and a 50.91% quorum.
This proposal seeks to 2× the trading liquidity, marking an 8× increase since the original 100K BNT funding limit included in the original whitelisting proposal, in less than three months. While not alarming in and of itself, it is a good moment to pause and reflect on the health of this relationship. I want to draw attention to the rationale offered by @Oliver in the new proposal:
There are some important take-home messages contained within this section:
- PhutureDAO has identified Bancor as both its primary liquidity provider, and treasury management solution.
- PhutureDAO requires a well-established liquidity base from which to build index products, and other financial instruments.
- PhutureDAO recognizes the value of IL protection as the only effective way to maintain a buy and hold return profile, while maintaining liquidity for the PHTR token.
- The necessity of the insurance payouts to be taken in BNT if PHTR diverges in price to the upside, is acknowledged, and treated with respect. BNT is identified as being an easy token to handle, due to the magnitude of its on-chain liquidity and distribution.
These are strong anecdotes in support of PhutureDAO’s knowledge and understanding of the Bancor product, and its utility to their project. Although the pool has grown much faster than I expected it to in when considering the whitelisting proposal in January, the momentum is justified. Sentiment is positive; users on Twitter from both communities have posted about the developing dovetailing of our project’s goals (see: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and so many more).
The Automaton will vote FOR increasing the BNT funding limit of PHTR.
The Automaton will vote FOR increasing the BNT funding limit on FODL.
Really appreciate the in-depth feedback. I’ll try to answer each below:
You’re first paragraph description is spot on. We were founded as a supply chain project with our flagship, implementation partner SyncFab. We worked together in implementing their full end-to-end manufacturing blockchain platform & MFG token integration connecting OEM/manufacturers and suppliers. The platform has been live since 2019 and is already being adopted by a variety of large enterprises in the aerospace, space, defense, automotive & medical industries. Some key notable clients/partners include Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky, Kencoa Aerospace, NTMA, SWISSMEM, LUCID, etc. You are welcome to learn more about SyncFab and their platform below:
The MFG token is used on the SyncFab platform to access a variety of their blockchain services which you can find and understand easily below:
Beyond enterprise supply chains, Smart MFG has begun a new set of initiatives to expand the ecosystem for a variety of consumer facing products.
We began with our liquidity mining (aka LP Rewards) dashboard. We started our first 6 month LP campaign back in Oct 2021 & and we are planning on starting a new 6 or 12 month campaign for the same Uni v3 MFG-ETH pair immediately after our campaign ends at the end of March. In addition, we are looking to expand our LP campaigns for our other liquidity pools. By Q3-Q4 2022, we are hoping to run 2-3 LP campaigns concurrently which will likely include our Uni v3 USDC & DAI pools.
Our next and biggest project with be our NFT Marketplace (called Phigital) which will have a central focus on 3D NFT assets & interoperable Metaverse NFT assets while still catering to the general NFT art assets as well. While SyncFab’s hardware tokenization service solely caters to enterprises, Phigital will be accessible for the general public. Our official marketplace isn’t live, so the “Galaxy Phantom” NFT you were referring to is from our sample page. When you click on any of the buttons on the sample page, you will be presented with a contact form to join our closed beta group when its live (expected for early Q2).
The Bancor whitelisting will allow us to help diversify our liquidity across multiple platforms. In addition, we have been a long time partner and supporter of the Bancor team & wanted to help cross promote their latest Bancor 3 platform to our community and felt this would be a great starting point. We are committed to providing the optimal MFG stake necessary for our Bancor pool if this proposal is approved.
Alot to unpack here, but I hope this answers all of your questions or concerns. Feel free to reach out if you need further clarity on anything else. Thanks again for your feedback and support. I may actually use some of your feedback to further improve our site content around the MFG token and its use cases.
Chief Operating Officer | Smart MFG
I wonder if we could discuss setting up an auto-compounding incentives scheme on Bancor V3? Let me know if you have time to discuss it - I would gladly schedule a call with you about it.
The reason I bring it up is that there are some significant advantages from the project side, including:
- The entire LM budget is liquid from the first instant.
- Users receive their rewards without paying gas to claim them, and without having to interact with a contract.
- The rewards for users accrue to the pool token, which in many jurisdictions is a capital gains event rather than income, which alleviates a huge tax burden (and therefore potential selling pressure on the token).
- The rewards are 100% single-sided, period. Nothing is required to be sold to fund the other side of the pool during compounding.
The details are discussed in the BIP15 Proposal. Let me know if you want to set up a call
Thanks for the suggestion MBR, I would be happy to discuss with you further, but not likely until around Q3. I’ll have a read of your very informative BIP15 proposal.
Hey Mark I understand your concern and why everyone saw this as a bad move but reading more into the protocol I quite like it and I think there was a big misunderstanding, I can see on etherscan the CVX was bought with USDC over time. GnosisSafeProxy | Address 0xdff2aea378e41632e45306a6de26a7e0fd93ab07 | Etherscan
This USDC is from the intial Token Sale that raised just under 7K ETH. Majority is held here: DeBank | Your DeFi wallet
Perhaps we could talk about allowing a good amount of liquidity in exchange for their treasury staking their ETH with us as well.
Always prepared to talk how well do you know these guys?
not well, just really intrigued by their project after going through it. I spoke with them and they do seem keen to try again tho.
Are delegators still reporting how they are voting?..