Ya i just wish something would pass regardless of what it is. Better then nothing passing. Easier said then done though.
2 Likes
Yea would be great if we can get a proposal going asap. But I do like to have it data driven and based on statistics.
3 Likes
To do the votes on the poll the most justice I think we should go for a weighted average of the votes. Currently (basing the weight on the percentages) the scaling would come to 18-25% (rounded down from 18,3%).
I deliberately chose 25% as a cap to stick to the original proposal and to keep it simple. It also allowed to do a stepwise approach. While I completely agree there are other opinions, I thought this was the best way to get the message through.
1 Like
I agree that it’s time to get a little more concrete. The majority of the votes in @kev’s poll seem to prefer a flat 25%. However, some thoughts on this:
- Most active members in this discussion are liquidated borrowers or already relatively pro-refund. I think we should consider the input from @Jahpete and @Collapseby2050 that there might be a decent group of users that wants some sort of scaling solution to get approval.
- @kev calculated that the weighted average of the votes on his poll result in 18-25%. This is an alternative approach to analyse the results of the poll.
To make the discussion about percentages easier I made a spreadsheet script that calculates the returned sICX for every applied scale. Feel free to look around and (anonymously) change the input values. You can also make a copy from the sheet and look around.
Important: This sheet is just my personal work/experiment created from a provided list with on-chain data. I reviewed my work but I cannot guarantee that there are no mistakes. Furthermore, there are different methods/datapoints that a linear scale can be applied to, so it is possible that even with the exact same scale eventual refunds will be different, but it will probably giva a good indication.
I will draft a proposal now so we have something more concrete to discuss.
4 Likes
I agree that although 25% won that chart that the linear proposal seems fruitful!
As Benny said before, proposals can be made so it can be tweaked until it hits 66.66% 
Title: Partial return of the liquidation penalty
Eligibility to claim sICX:
- Liquidated borrowers between Jan 20th and Jan 24th 2022.
- Non-liquidated borrowers.
Total amount of sICX to use: During the liquidation event over 1.95M sICX was paid in liquidation fees (33% of the total collateral). 1.525M sICX of this was added to the emergency reserve. 1.32M sICX will be returned to liquidated borrowers and 100k sICX will be distributed to non-liquidated borrowers pro-rata the loan on Jan 20th. This leaves over 106k sICX to be added to the original 743K sICX in the emergency reserve for platform enhancements.
Description
On Jan 20-24th 174 borrowers got liquidated in exceptional circumstances. Rebalancing progressively increased loans, often locking collateral. During this period 1.53M sICX in penalty fees was added to the emergency reserve. As a sign of goodwill, 1.32M of this liquidated sICX will be returned, scaled linearly (18-25%) from beginning to end. To support non-liquidated borrowers, 100k sICX will be distributed pro-rata. All sICX will come from collected penalty fees.
What happened
Read all: Jan 2022 market crash post-mortem
Howmuch sICX will be distributed to each address
In this document you can find howmuch sICX will be distributed to each address. You can verify the data by searching for your own wallet-address, looking on-chain and/or requesting the raw data.
What is the reasoning for these numbers?
An important point of this proposal is to return valuable assets to valuable community members without taking anything from the DAO or taking any additional funds from the emergency reserve. If this proposal will pass, it will not affect any other users of the platform and solely return some of the liquidation penalty. Furthermore, to support all borrowers that protected the value of bnUSD during the event, 100k sICX will be distributed to all non-liquidated borrowers pro-rata their loan on January 20th. This sICX will be distributed to acknowledge that many non-liquidated borrowers had to sell assets to counter the rebalancing and avoid liquidation.
The linear scale is applied in the proposal to create a fairer distribution. Reasoning being:
- The later borrowers got liquidated, the higher the loss of assets. You can read about this in the detailed analysis from @particleX
- Borrowers that got liquidated sooner most likely had a higher risk position to begin with and should therefore not receive the same compensation as lower risk positions.
The scale starts at 18%. This aligns with the current liquidation penalty to avoid any discussion about more recent liquidations outside of this event.
How will the claiming process work?
If the vote gets the approved (>66,66% approval rate) the proposal can be enacted. This will work as follows:
- The vote releases the sICX from the Emergency Reserve and sends it to the Batch Disbursement Contract.
- In this contract the sICX will be devided amongst all eligible wallets.
- Users can then claim the sICX from that contract.
10 Likes
Now a few examples of what different numbers would look like (calculated with the spreadsheetscript I provided earlier (read ‘disclaimer’):
18-25%
With a scale of 18-25%. 1.32M sICX will be returned to the liquidated borrowers. With the additional 100k sICX for non-liquidated borrowers this leaves over 106k sICX to be added to the reserve.
Flat 25%
With a scale of 25-25% (flat). 1.465M sICX will be returned to the liquidated borrowers. With the additional 100k sICX for non-liquidated borrowers this results in a ‘pricetag’ of 40k sICX for the emergency reserve.
18-33%
With a scale of 18-33% . 1.62M sICX will be returned to the liquidated borrowers. With the additional 100k sICX for non-liquidated borrowers this results in a ‘pricetag’ of 194k sICX for the emergency reserve.
15-25%
With a scale of 15-25%. 1.255M sICX will be returned to the liquidated borrowers. With the additional 100k sICX for non-liquidated borrowers this leaves 170k sICX to be added to the reserve.
3 Likes
Very good, thorough work @Chiel and good reasoning. If we are going to use the scale model, I personally believe we can use the 18-33% scale to keep it more close to the original proposals so that the users get back more of their fair share. 
3 Likes
Thanks! Personally I would not choose any option that takes funds from the reserve.
1 Like
Awesome work Chiel! I agree that its better not to take anything from the reserve. The 18-25% would be my choice. I think you have nailed it with this proposal.
3 Likes
Do you know what the max scale would be without taking from the reserve?
I also agree the proposal is good!
1 Like
You can use the spreadsheet posted by @Chiel above and play around.
The highest rounded scale that only takes from what was added to the fund would then be 23-25%.
2 Likes
Ok, then I think we should go with no less than that scale. No reason to leave anything added to the reserve.
2 Likes
Hi peoples,
I have been following your discussions hope that a resolution that works is found.
That said, I’m going to share my personal feelings — I’m not coming here to debate, or have my mind changed about funds being stolen or rebalancing being broken, I’m sharing my personal thoughts to give you all an idea of where my mind is. After, I will share my thoughts on proposals.
I, personally, don’t have a lot of sympathy for borrowers ~ I feel like with both sell and buy rebalancing, too many borrower’s felt the best strategy was to increase their collateral, whether that was to mint more bnUSD and buy, or bring in new collateral. That strategy relies on ICX price going up ~ it feels very similar to a martingale strategy.
Way too many borrowers traded bnUSD for sICX when bnUSD was undervalued during sell rebalancing. And then during buy rebalancing, some were adding sICX to their collateral to try and mitigate the buy rebalancing — because they didn’t want to buy bnUSD when it was overvalued. And others, having already traded their loaned bnUSD for sICX, had to trade sICX for bnUSD inflating an already inflated bnUSD value and compounding the buy rebalancing.
As the source of bnUSD in the first place, the bulk of borrowers ignored market conditions and the mechanics of rebalancing (which gives bnUSD value in the first place). They put themselves in horrible positions — even if their LTV % was low. The buy rebalancing after the snapshot was a pretty explicit example of what would happen in a market correction. Too many were unwilling to take a loss in the first 3 weeks of January to adjust their positions accordingly.
However, I do have empathy for their situation.
And as a BALN staker and holder I do have sympathy. I want our borrowers to have good experiences. This market correction could have been a huge payday for borrowers and BALN stakers alike.
My thoughts on proposals will be in the next post.
4 Likes
This was my proposal. I have absolutely no issues with returning 18% to all liquidated, as we have approved changing this value for future liquidations — it’s basically a retroactive price adjustment. I also realize this proposal didn’t receive a passing vote.
I would have a difficult time voting for something more. I’m not saying I am definite, just it would be hard to get my vote.
My hope is to just add some information from me, one voter. I wish you all a good weekend.
2 Likes
Please don’t get the discussion going again with old proposals. Why make it more difficult than it is? Let’s finish this and make a vote out of @Chiel new proposal and that one only this time! It’s a good solution to all this mess and I respect his thorough work with the calculations. If you still want to vote no this time, then best of luck to you on this platform onwards.
1 Like
Chiel your a hero! You have done a great job on this!
6 Likes
Sorry, I didn’t write that as well as I could have ~ I was hoping to give an idea of my thoughts, for the scale you’ll be choosing for the proposal.
Ok, got it, no problem. Yes, the percentage scale can be discussed if we are to use the scale model. I have to agree with @Richard point that we should design the scale so that all that was added to the emergency reserve in the given period gets returned.