Emergency fund - goodwill - blackswan event - refine proposal

They said they would take the proposal with the most votes and there would be a separate vote. There was nothing said about guaranteeing a refund

‘Most support from Baln holders’ - and I didn’t mention that the guaranteed a refund!! You’re tripping out

Misunderstood what you said. We will see what happens in the next few days

1 Like

People who got liquidated took the risk. They could have not taken a loan, or could have kept enough liquidity to close it. That being said I did vote for 1/4 refund and will vote for it again. Because emergency fund is there for situations like this, when human irresponsibility takes over.


I agree there was risk and everyone should have researched better (myself included) I didn’t know my liquidation point could be moved and that’s my own ignorance!

I think 1/4 refund is a good medium as it’s a 33% penalty so they still get 8% penalty!

I appreciate your goodwill vote @Rabbit

1 Like

Just going to hop in here for some clarifying statements

The emergency reserve fund, as a smart contract, has a specific purpose. It’s to cover bad debt in the case that a loan is liquidated, but the collateral is not enough to cover the debt. It’s more of a technical mechanism than anything else. The below is from the whitepaper and I believe the functionality is present in the smart contract, but anybody can verify.

Emergency reserve fund

In extreme circumstances where the value of bad debt of a particular pegged asset is greater than the value of the forced liquidation pool, an emergency reserve fund will be made available for outside traders to be compensated for paying off bad debt. 5% of Balance Tokens mined on a daily basis are sent to the emergency reserve fund, along with leftover collateral from liquidations.

More voters, yes, but also worth noting was that the most BALN voted to approve this proposal. You can confirm by multiplying the % approved * % voted.

However, most importantly, there is no formal, set-in-stone process here. What was just done are “Text Proposals”. They don’t enact anything. Anybody in the community (myself included), could completely disregard what happened, write their own smart contract to distribute funds based on some rules (maybe the 1/4 vote, maybe something new, totally up to that person), then put up a Funding Proposal to direct funding to their own contract.

The key point here is “instead of arguing”. This is the final warning to everybody on this forum. Disrespect or derailing the conversation, in any form, will be strictly moderated going forward. Balanced is not a scam, people that were liquidated were not necessarily “greedy”… this is not the place to hurl insults at each other. In order to move in a productive direction, there needs to be room for consistent productive discussion without needing to go through constant attacks/defends.

@ICONspartan feel free to proceed with a productive conversation and I’ll be sure to moderate more closely going forward.

One thing I want to make sure is clear to everybody. As mentioned above, there is no set-in-stone process. Everybody here has the same power as a BALN LP/staker. I have no more power than anybody else. Anybody here can write a smart contract to distribute funds. I have no computer science background whatsoever, but I have learned java because I’m active in the ICON ecosystem. Anybody can do this.

So to answer your question, I can’t know what to expect, same as you. I have, however, spoken to a few community devs that are working on a distribution contract, to be made open-source, just in case anybody wants to vote for a distribution. Again, this is an action anybody can take. Anybody can look for devs in the community to talk about these things. The contract is quite simple. It takes in a list of accounts and the percentage of the distribution the account should get. The calculation of the percentage, all the rules around it, etc. are done off-chain, so the contract itself is flexible enough to handle most basic distribution rules.


@Chiel I have been meaning to ask:

Do you have any refinements you’d like to make based on all the recent community discussion?

Your proposal had the most BALN approve votes, but it’s still quite divided and would likely have a hard time getting the 67% support. I’m not sure how much of the vote was grounded in logic vs false narratives and emotion, so it’s hard to refine it, but I’m curious nonetheless


Im wondering if some supporters of a refund only voted on their preferred refund option and didnt vote against the ‘no refund’ option. Would it make sense to have a single vote to try and establish a majority (51% rather than 66%) either for a refund or against a refund? And then if 51% or more support a refund we can move forward with voting on refund proposals?


Yeah I see your point. It would not be possible to have a vote with a simple majority as the deciding factor, but besides that, any votes can be put up on-chain by any user that pays the 100 bnUSD fee and has 0.1% of BALN supply staked

I think it might be possible to get a majority vote on whether or not Balanced provides some kind of compensation because the issue is black or white - compensate or don’t (Id be willing to pay for this vote). But if the vote to compensate is passed, it’s going to be more difficult to find agreement on the level of compensation. This vote would draw ‘reject votes’ from people who voted against compensation and people who voted for compensation but disagree with the amount.

I see this as the main stumbling block in deciding compensation and can’t see a way around it. Any thoughts on how a vote for the level of comp could be conducted that doesn’t end in stalemate?

1 Like

Does this sound like a reasonable proposal for a vote:

‘Balanced should provide compensation for liquidated users and users who helped maintain the peg during the Jan 21-24th market crash (the amount to be decided should this vote pass)

Funds received by Balanced from liquidated positions should be frozen until the level of compensation is agreed upon.


@benny_options do you still need 20k baln to post a vote?

@benny_options as you said that @Chiel proposal of ‘1/4 refund and 100k baln split’ got the most baln support isn’t that now supposed to go to an on chain vote as Balnanced Dao tweeted before we do more?

Or do we need to find something that will pass prior?

I think there will be more green now the other proposals have been taken out of the equation but I also don’t really know how it all works I must admit!

I disagree with this. It should not just be 51%. It should be a 2/3 majority (66%).

1 Like

I think this would be a good idea. More of a level laying field due to being divided!

1 Like

I think regardless a lot of people would have voted solely for their own choice. I think now it will be a case of have this or don’t it will get a lot more votes!

However I think in this instant a 51% approval would benefit.

In honesty no proposal will get 66.66% no matter what it is!

1 Like

Getting a 2/3 majority will be difficult. I think the only way to conclude the vote is to switch to a simple majority. Over 50% takes the day. Sooner this is cleared up the better.


I 100% agree with this. @benny_options
Is their a way we can have this one just be flat majority wins?

I personally always thought the votes should be higher percentage vote wins. The 66% always was odd to me but I got the reasoning behind it.


I like this proposal where it’s a established a refund will be provided based on a 50 percent majority and then freeze the funds until an amount can be decided based off another 50 percent vote. If if the first one doesn’t get approved then keep going until a 50 percent consensus is voted on for the amount. That seems like a fair idea.

1 Like

When you say it isnt possible to have a simple majority vote is that due to tech impracticalities? Would we be able to alter the voting system based on a text vote?

1 Like