My question is why not allocated the same % to both the IUSDC/bnUSD & USDS/bnUSD pairs rather than the 0.5%:2% proposed allocations? Do we not need more liquidity in the USDS:bnUSD pool?
Haha I unfortunately am not sure what you’re referring to here. Can you quote me on where you’re confused and I’ll clarify?
The reason is because USDS isn’t as helpful for getting new users to enter our ecosystem. It’s more of a stablecoin specifically for ICON users since it’s not big elsewhere. Doesn’t really help with arbitrage or stability of bnUSD.
I was just discussing adding a USDT/bnUSD pool which would be best for arbitrage traders. I may wait for that pool to be deployed and adjust this proposal to have USDT/bnUSD to have the most incentives, with less incentive on IUSDC
2 Likes
nice move, fully support
1 Like
YES!!! USDT on balanced should be the next move
With rebalancing occurring more often than anticipated I’m adjusting the proposal to the following in order to provide better execution of arbitrage between centralized exchanges and the Balanced DEX. Right now it’s just too many trades and too difficult for people to do. With IUSDT, you can go directly from your wallet to Binance through the Orbit Bridge, making it much faster to take advantage of miss pricing.
I plan on adding a USDT pool as mentioned above and I’d like it to be the most incentivized of all stablecoin pools because it’s the most direct connection to ICX arbitrage opportunities, further helping to strengthen the peg.
See the below screenshot, and I’ll be proposing 3% to USDT/bnUSD and 0.5% to USDS/bnUSD they just are not in the UI yet because they have not been added as a rewards option. I cut more from the reserve fund because this is used in obscure situations, received heavy funding during our early days of heavy inflation, and can be manually funded with the DAO Fund in the future if necessary.
3 Likes
Like by increasing it more? Because I see 17.5% → 15%.
Maybe I’m missing something
@Elo try using the “quote” feature so I can get a better idea of what you’re replying to and/or referencing haha. You highlight the section of my text you want to reply to then the “quote” option should appear. I’m still not quite sure what you’re asking unfortunately
1 Like
I believe the idea is to increase the pools that are easy/quicker to arbitrage. So the iUSDC and iUSDT pools will increase.
1 Like
Why not lower the % to the dao fund? More than 10% of baln market cap is already in the dao fund, is there a reason so much capital needs to be in the dao fund for any on going project ? I understand the dao fund needs to grow for future needs but does it need to be at 20%
The DAO fund is for more than current projects. I talk about in this post. The situation for other pools has changed since then, but the need to build the DAO fund now hasn’t.
How much will it cost to get people to bring their capital to Balanced from other chains? In incentives? In advertisements/promotion? BTP will bring some great opportunities, but it’ll cost something to bring capital over from established native chain competitors.
3 Likes
These particular adjustments, including iUSDT incentives, look good to me. 
1 Like
I voted to approve this because I do agree with you about the arbitration opportunity.
I feel that the decision making behind distribution isn’t as clear to me though. I liked your example of the ‘tvl per baln’ ratio, go deeper so voters can at least see what to pick percentages they want to be?
When your plan to start real time voting with averages for distribution comes to fruition, being able to see the effects would be useful.
1 Like
I voted against the proposal because I think lowering rewards for bnUSD/BALN & bnUSD/sICX while increasing rewards for BALN/sICX will further decrease demand for bnUSD.
We should first wait and see if adding bnUSD to OMM will help to stabilize the peg.
1 Like
At some point workers percentage should also be adjusted, I know I know no premine etc., but growing platform is in their best interest, but it seems for now everybody is taking the responsibility for growing the platform (by giving away more from their respective LP daily rewards) but them, and they are the ones who will profit the most from it as they are holding the most of native token.
Here is a relevant discussion outlining the rationale behind the worker allocation. No pre-mine is only part of the reasoning behind the decision. It has not even been two months since this last discussion so not much has changed that would result in a change in stance for me.
Having said that, at some point in the future I would expect to see worker token allocations changed to the DAO Fund.
To add to what has been said, the workers get 20%. The BALN/bnUSD pool gets 17.5% atm. I hope we should not need to outline which has overwhelmingly more positive economic impact on Balanced. In the last 24h as of writing, that pool as generated $587 in fees, half of which go to LPs, so about 290. That gets 17.5% versus worker tokens 20%.
1 Like
I have to respectively disagree with You here, two months is 1/3 of the life span of this platform, we are nearing the point where BALN will reach half of its original distribution. I don’t mind showcasing other DeFi projects but comparing them is difficult task. Without any disrespect to ICON for now tis a different beast and its user base thus Balanced is limited, so in my modest opinion keeping the ones we have or can get “happy”(or at least motivated to keep their money here) is very important. “Fixing” rebalancing (I myself totally skipped borrowing because of it, I am sure its more psychological thing, people don’t like when others play with their toys read money) by impacting another rather large part of projects users base should come with some sort of showing of true spirit of decentralization, that we are all equal in it, and even symbolic 1-2% out off workers share would be a good sign to community, again in my subjective opinion.
Not everything can be quantified economically, there are many different factors that come in to play when it comes to keeping people comfortable within certain communities (DeFi), especially when large sums of money are considered and this is what I am talking about here.
Imho the constant rebalancing loop is quite an issue that needs to be tackled instantly.
In the near future I think Equality Exchange will lead to a stable peg, but we are not there yet.
So the bnUSD/IUSDT pool appears to be the lowest hanging fruit for price stability.
Now I am trying to look at this with an unbiased opinion with no stake in BALN (disclosure: we and I hold BALN) at what APR I would farm this pool just for profit under the assumptions that
a) BALN is rather an illiquid asset compared i.e. CVX/CRV
b) bnUSD is a relatively volatile stablecoin compared to i.e. MIM or DAI which are also minted through CDPs.
I could easily get a yield of 30%+ on farming in relatively low risk pools such as ALCX, SPELL, CVX etc. on Ethereum or get 50%+ on Curve Factory Fixed Forex pools with other less established synthetic assets.
So taking this into account, I think anything below 45% APR I would personally not enter the bnUSD/IUSDT pool.
After some napkin math, if I haven’t done any mistakes here, that would be a pool size of roughly $2.5m with new BALN allocations and this is also what I expect the new bnUSD/IUSDT pool end up with in size.
Would this pool actually be big enough?
Would be curious to see if there has been done some calculations around this.