Agree on increase value of the token first , i strongly propose incentive baln staker to prevent the baln selling.
I concur with this 100%. Staking rewards are quite weak given the BALN asset performance.
3 Likes
For those that are asking for rewards to BALN stakers I have to say I’m a bit confused. Have you guys taken a look at BIP4 @Verocknode @Balnmax @Bot123456789?
We all just voted on that proposal which gives a clear incentive to stake + lock BALN for long periods of time. It has recently passed and will be a major focus of smart contract development. If choose to change the structure of BIP4, I would at least prefer to wait to see the effects of the proposal that was just passed a few hours ago. Here is the link.
@Moen82 thanks for the detailed response. I’ll share my thoughts with you later tonight as it requires more time than quickly pointing these folks to the recent BALN staking vote.
I like the booster concept and voted yes on it, but still feel a small bump in normal staking rewards would be beneficial.
Hi Benny,
Thank for your reply . The BIP 4 doesnt mentioned on the BALN reward allocation, that why i highlight here since the reward for Baln staker really insignificant at the moment. We just want more clarify how much % of Baln reward will incentive to Baln Staker to prevent Baln selling.
@Bot123456789 @Balnmax I can see how you would be confused and apologize for that, but BIP4 was indeed about the reward structure of staking BALN. I shared a quote below from the original proposal, and it would have been helpful to share your opinion on the BIP4 proposal to be included in the previous vote.
Either way, adding rewards simply for staking BALN would indeed require additional dev effort, not something that’s as easily switched like the current pools. Let’s focus on what can be more easily changed for this proposal, then you can have a separate proposal to add a new reward pool for staking BALN (something small seems fine to me, no strong feelings here). After a new reward pool is approved, then we can decide how much to add to it. That would be a good process.
Thanks for clarifying. Makes sense. Just curious, but what is the % yield for staking BALN currently. I haven’t seen the numbers or missed it.
This proposal i can get behind 100 percent !
Increasing the dao fund and reducing the rewards for borrowers is the way to go !!
Great proposal !
1 Like
Just want to thow an additional thought regarding all the peple that want some allocation to stakers, funds in the DAO fund are directly property of the DAO, which stakers(voters) are.
I know its not 100% the same, but it still is kind of the same thing.
Other than that I think its pretty good idea.
One suggestion on the presentation of the breakdown of the distribution, perhaps it would be clearer if they were segemented into groups, like all the LP incentives together, with a total, and the ‘DAO controlled funds’ which is the DAO fund + Emergency Reserve. Or maybe seperate the ones that cause ‘dilution’ of stakers, like various rewards, versus things like the DAO fund, or in the future any allocations to stakers
1 Like
I’d also prefer if stakers get a portion of the daily allocation. So far its still underwhelming compared to their value in bnUSD. Yes, I have read up on the previous BIP but it only incentivise long-term holders vs short term holders and their activity (providing LP) and it does not address the poor returns from just purely staking BALN. Personally, I’ll be voting “no” as it still does little right for the BALN stakers. I’m all for allocating more to DAO fund but it still does not address to the stakers.
People are going to compare it BALN to ICX staking when it comes to returns. At the moment, the variable returns are largely base on minting bnUSD. Without heaving minting of bnUSD, its approximately 3-5% APY of the total value of BALN. With ‘heavy’ minting over the last few days, its around 8-10% APY.
I’d suggest increasing the allocation for BALN stakers from 0% to a small percentage (~5%). I’d suggest allocating DAO fund to 15% and let stakers have 5% of it.
That will complement very well with the previous BIP proposed on bBALN. It’ll be a good floor for BALN to have some allocation and predictable rewards + variable rewards from network fees.
6 Likes
Should BALN stakers be rewarded with daily BALN allocation? (~5%)
- Yes
- No
0 voters
2 Likes
I’m going to put a poll. I believe majority of the BALN stakers will feel that there is little that is done for the last few months with the poor incentives of BALN stakers. This will be felt even more when users have their tokens locked for 4 years. Without a fixed daily allocation, and in a bear market (with less trading activity) and where there is less minting, its going to be very bad. We should nail this first (in terms of implementation) before coming up with the bBALN BIP implementation.
EDIT: 1 more point to add on, for bBALN to be successful and for more people to be comfortable with voting for the full 4 years, its hard just to rely on a variable incentives. There should be another incentives thats more stable. I believe that is when the daily allocation of BALN comes in. It does not need to be a huge allocation. If it is too much/too little, I believe we can do another vote to adjust the allocation of it again.
2 Likes
Not sure if you guy notice in white paper OMM also provided 10% OMM reward for staker ? why Balanced can’t ?
My 2 cents.
I like it Scott!
However I think it’s still too much of
change.
I’d prefer to maintain a higher rewards for borrowing, atleast for the short term. Because with the launch of OMM the demand for stable coin is high.
The more borrowing, the more origination fees!
As far as BALN stakers receiving BALN emissions. I’d prefer to see how the bBALN goes first.
This will boost your BALN rewards anyway! And also support the BALN price, with more incentive to HODL rather than sell.
As for reducing the emissions to the sICX/ICX pool, I’m against this. With the current APY around 12%, it’s a great alternative for ICX stakers to participate in Balanced rather than staking on the network. I’d rather see the APY maintained to be similar to ICON network rewards.
1 Like
One more thing. @benny_options where would the emissions for the stable coin rewards come from?
They could easily come from the borrowing rewards?
Maybe we move some of the emissions from borrowing rewards into stablecoin pairs and the DAO.
I too think that it would be good to increase the rewards for BALN stakers somewhat. Currently it does seem a bit underwhelming and if our longterm goal is to encourage BALN staking, in my view this is something we should do.
As a related topic, it would be great if the current staking APY was visible in the Wallet → Stake view next to the Balance and Value rows. It’s a biy hazy at the moment what current APY’a are.
Thank you for listening Benny!
1 Like
Based on the network fee split more than 50% of the fees seems to come from people paying to borrow against their collateral. Benny would have the exact split/numbers as a % here over the last 30days. If the rewards for Borrowing is cut I’m afraid this will lead to a lot of people moving their tokens elsewhere or away from ICX and it will hurt the BALN valuation even more if we start cutting into the biggest revenue stream for the BALN token.
If demand for the stable coin is high, there is less reason to incentivise borrowing.
Other than that, from previous dicussions, there is quite a strong consensus then that the reward rate for borrowing is too high. The risk of rebalancing is now much lower given its 5% bonus.
Additionally with regards to the ICX/sICX pool, at risk of repeating myself, the reward rate will change itself to match the current reward rate, even when we reduce it, because some people will pull out and the reward rate will rise again.
If the end pool is still large enough to serve the needs of users, then its enough. Additionally unlike liquidity pools, it doesn’t even offer a superior trading experience at a larger size, “enough” will be enough, without hurting the network fees received from sICX>ICX.
To BALN Stakers
I want to remind all stakers, “we own the DAO fund.”
2 Likes
Just want to hop in and say I’m loving the back & forth, constructive discussion of the community. I read every post and don’t necessarily feel the need to jump in just yet, I want to see how the community goes.
So far, I’ll share that adding a reward for BALN stakers in this current proposal would delay it considerably, because it’s not an existing reward bucket. Adding new reward buckets is not easy right now (except for additional LPs because it’s already built into the DEX), but we are working on smart contract architecture enhancements to make it easier going forward. It seems overall the community is ok with what has been done (moving borrowers over to DAO fund) with some mild resistance. Overall, please do keep in mind that this is flexible and that community-submitted proposals are coming soon. At the very least, it would be good to see the tangible effects of lowering borrower rewards to gather data points. This is all about experimentation, these changes are by no means permanent
So for BALN Staking - I would ask that we hold off on this until we move to the continuous rewards architecture which is currently in implementation stages. I am open to a small reward for BALN stakers, but I don’t agree with it longer-term as I personally believe BIP4 is enough to incentivize staking by our users. Either way, I would be open to maybe 2.5% - 5% as a minimal reward for locking BALN, and we would base that reward on bBALN balance.
4 Likes
Problem: We are “giving” out a large proportion of newly minted BALN to reward pools which may be over incentivized and to an emergency fund that may be “overstocked”. Basically losing the opportunity to get more value for that BALN (and network fees earned?) funds at a later date.
Solution: Reallocate those rewards to the DAO fund.
I feel the first point about “over incentivized pools” is true, and that this decrease will not effect income from loans or the stability of the sICX/ICX pool. Further, if the market reacts adversely, we can readjust in a timely manner.
The easy reasoning:
- Borrowers can make their initial 1.1% in fees back in like 84 days just by holding a debt. When you compound into a BnUSD pool, then that becomes much shorter.
- The sICX/ICX pool has a huge amount of TVL.
Is the emergency fund ”overstocked?”
I honestly don’t know. I also don’t know how to tell the validity of anyone’s arguments for or against this being the case. I also don’t have a clue how to come up with an idea of how much capital should be there. The amount needed to guard against bad debt (my assumed reasoning for the fund), might be a tenth of what we currently hold, or it could dwarf our current holdings.
If we have a metric for deciding the level of the emergency fund, then we should know it, and tout it. ”The $X bnUSD in circulation are backed by X ICX, and further protected by a X dollar amount emergency fund.”
If it’s not a marketable number/idea, that’s fine, but I believe we should have some type of metric for managing that fund.
As well, I feel we should have some of the rewards “float” between those funds, that can be adjusted by the DEV team to meet the goal of the fund (so it doesn’t require a vote to change allocation between these 2 funds on the fly maybe just an announcement edit/addition).
If we have that metric already, we could change the wording to allow for that, and eliminate a need for a vote for managing the fluidity of rewards between these two funds in the future. The initial %5 rewards for the emergency fund become flexible to meet the goal of the Emergency Fund, with excess rewards being allocated to the DAO fund by development team (or it could be the total initial 10% of rewards for both the emergency fund and the DAO fund, that becomes flexible edit/addition).
I don’t know if that make sense. My only concerns with this proposal is my lack of understanding of what our metric is for the emergency fund. And also, If the emergency fund is extremely overstocked, then maybe we should be more aggressive on the reward reallocation.
2 Likes