BoringDAO tweet confirmed.

1 Like

Proposal: Activate LM Rewards for Enzyme (MLN) with an 8-Week Duration + Increase Co-Investment Limit to 500k

A tweet was posted to ask for some clarification from Enzyme on the proposed collaboration. There has not been any activity to report, however a community member responded that the proposal should have been postponed until there is a clear understanding between the MLN and BNT communities. The Voting Automaton is voting AGAINST this LM program for now, due to uncertainty surrounding the value of its implementation. However, once a firm basis for the proposal is established, the ‘Strategic Pool’ requirements will certainly be satisfied, and the Automaton will vote FOR in future rounds. Following the standard established by FARM, it seems appropriate to invite an Enzyme representative to a community call to discuss further, prior to the proposal being reconsidered.


Proposal to Increase Co-investment for DRC to 50,000 BNT

The Voting Automaton will vote FOR the proposed increase in single-sided staking capacity.

Proposal to Whitelist Efinity (EFI) by Enjin

The Voting Automaton will vote FOR the whitelisting status of Enjin’s EFI token.

Proposal: Activate LM rewards for AMP-BNT pool with an Eight Week Duration + 2M BNT Co-investment Limit

The Automaton’s behavior on liquidity mining proposals has recently been clarified:

The AMP proposal is unique, in the sense that the rewards do not activate until after BNT becomes a supported asset on the Flexa payments network. Since this adds additional, long-term utility to the BNT token, the value proposition of the LM campaign is justified. Further, the fact that if BNT is not supported, that LM rewards will not activate, is a great implementation of LM rewards as an incentive to drive collaboration. Therefore, the Automaton will vote FOR the LM incentives on the AMP token, on the provision that BNt is an approved asset on the Flexa Network.

Proposal: Whitelist $ONE (Harmony) - 150K BNT Co-Investment

The Voting Automaton will vote FOR the whitelisting status of Harmony ONE.

Fee Change on FTT (FTX TOKEN) to .5%

The proposed fee change is in-range. The Voting Automaton will vote FOR the proposed change to 0.5% swap fee on the FTT pool.

Proposal to Whitelist $MONA (DIGITALAX) - 150K BNT Co-Investment (Second attempt at quorum)

As before, the Voting Automaton will support the whitelist status of MONA.


The Harmony ONE tweet can be found here.
The social engagement of the DIGITALAX/MONA team is described above.
The Enjin EFI tweet can be found here.

1 Like

Proposal: Whitelist Saffron Finance (SFI) + 250k Co-Invest

The obligatory Tweet from the Saffron Finance main account has been confirmed. The reasoning for the co-investment number is sound; the proposal suggests to capture 30-50% of the total DEX liquidity for SFI, which is well within reach given the size of the largest pools on Uniswap and Sushiswap. The Voting Automaton will vote FOR the whitelisting status of SFI.

Proposal: Extend LM Rewards on ENJ (Enjin) Pool
Proposal: Extend LM Rewards on Alpha Pool
Proposal: Extend LM Rewards on WOO Pool
Proposal: Extend LM Rewards on MATIC Pool
Liquidity Mining Extension for BTC/ETH/LINK
Proposal: Activate Greatly-Reduced LM Rewards for LQTY

Voting logic for staking rewards looks like this:

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

Therefore, the Voting Automaton will vote AGAINST extensions to Alpha, Enjin, Woo and Matic, and vote FOR the extensions to wBTC, LINK and ETH.

The rewards schedule for LQTY is among the first to be held to the disambiguated voting rules for first-time staking rewards:

The staking rewards proposal discusses only TVL. As outlined above, this automatically triggers an AGAINST vote from the Automaton.

Proposal: 500K UMA Co-Investment Increase / UMA Treasury Match
Proposal: Increase ICHI Co-investment from 350k to 700k + 0.3% Trading Fee
Increase co investment on FTT (FTX TOKEN) to 350,000 BNT
Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 500K BNT on QNT (Quant) Pool - 2nd Attempt

All co-investment increases are reasonable, and justified. Unlike the LM rewards, use of the co-investment to drive competitive liquidity depth to Bancor is highly cost efficient, and completely unique to our platform; staking rewards are everywhere. As noted on the most recent community call with our guest from UMA - the treasurer at UMA had his “mind blown” by the single-sided capacity of Bancor’s liquidity provision, and which is supporting the contribution of DAO funds. In short, all of the proposals for increased single-sided capacity discuss competitive depth and reference the appropriate data, which satisfies the requirements of the Automaton. The only additional item is the concomitant change in the fee for ICHI, which is in 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 co-investment increases on UMA, ICHI, FTT and QNT.


POWR Whitelist Proposal & BNT co-investment 250,000

POWR was among the first tokens to establish a pool on Bancor. The Powerledger Twitter account is relatively focused on energy policy. In private correspondence, the Powerledger team have indicated that they will help to promote the staking function of the Bancor pool following the whitelisting vote. As a long term supporter of Bancor, there is no reason to doubt that the Powerledger team will help to raise awareness within their community.

Proposal: Extend LM rewards on 0Chain (ZCN/BNT)
Proposal: Extend LM Rewards on COMP-BNT (Compound) Pool for an Additional Six Weeks

The automaton logic for staking rewards proposals is as follows:

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

As both ZCN and COMP have already completed an LM program, the Automaton will vote AGAINST these proposals.

Proposal to Whitelist Token (EDEN)

The EDEN team were guest speakers in a recent Bancor community call, and helped to advertise their involvement, and the whitelisting proposal on Twitter (here, here, here, and here). Community engagement is mostly positive. Further, Bancor and EDEN have a longstanding and ongoing collaboration to help with MEV issues. The EDEN project (formerly ArcherDAO) serves a clear purpose, the product is good, and all engagement criteria are met. Therefore, the automaton will vote FOR its whitelisting status.

BancorDAO Whitelist Proposal for unFederalReserve (eRSDL)

The obligatory tweet from the UnFederalReserve project team has been confirmed. Further, community sentiment seems positive, with prominent Bancor/Chainlink community members expressing support for the whitelisting proposal on Twitter (e.g. here and here). The Automaton will vote FOR eRSDL whitelisting.

Proposal: Whitelist DeXe Network (DEXE) - 200K BNT Co-Investment

The obligatory Tweet from the DeXe team has been confirmed. DeXe does not have an active incentives program for its pool on Uniswap, the co-investment limit is set at a reasonable level, and integrations within the DeXe Investment Platform are being prepared:

The Automaton will vote FOR the DeXe whitelisting proposal.

1 Like

Powerledger Tweet confirmed. The Automaton will vote FOR its whitelisting status.

1 Like

Proposal: Whitelist Bridge Mutual (BMI) with 500K BNT Co-Investment

The obligatory tweet from the BMI team has been confirmed. The Bridge Mutual team were guests on the Bancor community call prior to the whitelisting vote. After the call, the team members continued to engage with community members in the Telegram channels, answering questions about the DeFi insurance landscape, tokenomics of BMI, future outloook, and other things. The level of engagement is admirable, and the commitment of the Bridge Mutual team to their project certainly seems sincere. From a whitelisting perspective, this whitelisting proposal covers all bases: engagement is high, the co-investment limit is reasonable, sentiment is good, the project serves a clear purpose, and its team is highly approachable and transparent. The Automaton will vote FOR whitelisting status of BMI.

Proposal: Increase eRSDL (UnFederal Reserve) Co-Investment to 500K BNT

The eRSDL co-investment increase was proposed by LinkSemper, a prominent and influential figure on Twitter, and a long-term community member of Bancor. LinkSemper’s Twitter activity surrounding the eRSDL pool on Bancor is notable (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here), and a team member from UnFederal Reserve was a guest speaker on the Bancor community call this week. Combined with the fact that space inside this pool was exhausted within approx. 24 hours, this level of engagement more than justifies the proposed increase. The Automaton will vote FOR increased staking capacity inside the eRSDL pool.

Bancor Improvement Proposal: Decrease ETH-BNT Pool Fees to 0.05%

The proposed fee change is technically out of 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

Moreover, this proposal seeks to establish a ‘permanent’ LM program on the ETH pool. This is something of a misnomer, as the DAO can enact and abolish staking incentives as it so desires, so to propose that any LM program is permanent is an unusual choice of words. In any case, the Automaton is conservative about staking rewards, and any ‘permanent’ staking rewards proposal is decidedly liberal in the extreme.

The Automaton will vote AGAINST the fee change and permanent liquidity mining proposal.
For full disclosure - I (Mark Richardson) am voting for this proposal; the Automaton is not.

1 Like

what does this mean now? its technically not possible to lower fees to 0% or 0.05%?

the follow up proposal is a test and the protocol should subsidize the missing fees for the duration and then discuss if a permanent subsidy to replace the missing fees is a possibility.

1 Like

^ Pretty good idea honestly

1 Like

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.