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.
Thanks Awaxjago - Its definitely useful to hear thoughts for the other side of the argument and its also great to hear that you arent totally against returning a % of the penalty. That seems to be the area we need to get right for the vote to pass. Chiel’s solution is more elegant than a flat % return, however and seems much fairer to reward those whose risk was higher with slightly less of a return and those whose risk was lower, and really suffered from rebalancing, with slightly more - maybe 18-25%. This amount means that all returns are paid out of the liquidated sicx and nothing is taken from the reserve fund. Its is as you say just a retroactive price adjustment. Would you be willing to vote for this?
2 Likes
Is that this one:
If this proposal came up, Im about 80% certain I’d vote for it; I like it a lot.
You* will definitely have your work cut out for you in convincing some people (*all the people putting effort into this) — many view the world as a zero sum game.
6 Likes
Yep. Thats the proposal. But you’re right; it’s difficult to change people’s minds. It’ll be interesting to see whether having a single option has any effect on the outcome.
Chiel - What are you thoughts about putting some numbers into your proposal and getting it up for a vote? Or should we wait a while to see it there is any more feedback? In terms of scaling range, my preference is anything that doesn’t dip into the reserve fund.
I don’t want to step on any toes, and Im not sure how you are set with staked BALN, but I would be happy to send you bnusd to cover the cost of / contribute to the vote (My GBETs are hustling in order to fund my bnusd wallet) or I can put the vote up myself - atm I have the required staked BALN.
5 Likes
Yea we could get it up for a vote soon I think. I believe that asking for more than 18-25% will create to much resistance so if it would be up to me I would definitely choose 18-25%. However, I don’t insist on having the final say. I do hope that everyone keeps in mind that this is a relatively pro-return group of users discussing here. BALN holders with no/minimal involvment in the liquidation event are less likely to participate here and more likely to oppose returned sICX.
I don’t have enough BALN staked to create the proposal so great to hear that you are willing. I don’t know if another text proposal is the way to go though. We might want to deploy the actual contract so that it can be enacted if it would get approved.
5 Likes
Ahh…that sounds complicated. I can probably work out how to put a text vote up. That looks quite simple but thats about the limit of my tech skills. Whats involved in deploying a contract?
1 Like
@chiel you did a good job and your Excel looks great. @Dangooner would be great if you can get up the vote :). Lets get this thing rolling. 18-25% is in my opinion a good idea.
6 Likes
I think each time a vote is up it’s gunna be harder and harder to pass so taking time to get it right is key! We need 66.66% of people happy and looking into the telegram that will be very difficult
1 Like
Be positive mate! Balanced users and Icon Spartans are always ready to help eachother 
2 Likes