Emergency fund - goodwill - blackswan event - refine proposal

[Tob5222]

I think that the icx and baln should be locked for minimum of 30 days to stop the dump!

Claim the coins so they’re in your wallet but do a 30 day unstake etc

[Tob5222]

I feel if you start trying to split into:

Person A can have this
Person B can have this

You will lose more votes! I wouldn’t push too far from the original proposal as it was still the most popular. More voters will come who denied it wanting a different proposal!

I feel not being able to sell them will encourage a lot and I feel replacing BALN with sicx is good also

[benny_options]

@Tob5222

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

It’s staking 0.1% of total supply (~19.5k BALN) and a 100 bnUSD fee

---

@Tob5222

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

You can move forward with whatever process you think is best. Nobody has specific control over this. The only rules that I’m aware of written in code are:

• 66.67% approval to get anything passed/enacted
• 100 bnUSD proposal fee, refunded if the proposal is approved
• Stake 0.1% of total BALN supply in order to propose a vote

@Dangooner

Getting a 2/3 majority will be difficult. I think the only way to conclude the vote is to switch to a simple majority.

This is honestly a much different discussion. This would be a meta-governance category and would be a discussion specifically to change the Balanced governance process. For the purposes of this thread, I’d recommend operating within the confines of the current governance process.

@Cm89

Is their a way we can have this one just be flat majority wins?

There is not a way to do that to my knowledge.

@Dangooner

Would we be able to alter the voting system based on a text vote?

Nope, that can’t be done to my knowledge. The only vote parameter that can be changed to my knowledge is the length of time the vote lasts. Feel free to inspect the contract on your own though, nobody needs to take my word for it.

[Chiel]

I understand your point. The original proposal was straightforward and to the point and we could leave it at that of course. I just don’t think any small number tweak will bump it to a 67% approval. But as pointed out it is hard to say how many voted were grounded in logic or emotions.

[Tob5222]

Yeah I mean hold 20k baln to post I meant! Thanks for clarifying

[Tob5222]

I think you’ve done a good job already bro! I think tweaking 100k ban to 100k sicx with a lock would help!

I think 67% would be hard also but I do feel that it would get a lot more power because some voters would have denied it and gone for the 3 month choice for example!

So instead of 52% you might get 60% how it is now, the baln swap and lock may push it up also. I don’t know

[Tob5222]

You’re on the right track we know that

[benny_options]

Thanks for the quick response!

@Chiel

We could give an in-app description with the proposal to elucidate the reasoning behind it.

I do agree here, language can be quite important. The on-chain proposal is limited to 500 characters. Would you be able to take a crack at how you think it should be described? Another idea I had, in order to limit the prejudice, could be to solely provide a link to the full proposal in the description to get around the 500 character limit. This could backfire though, where people just wouldn’t even read it. Whatever you think is best works for me.

@Chiel

I read some concerns about the distribution of BALN tokens that might be dumped. I personally am not worried about this but one small tweak that might get a few more approvals is to change the 100k BALN for non liquidated borrowers to 100k sICX. I thought BALN would be fitting as a sign of appriciation but sICX works just as well.

I would agree with this. I bet at least some people voted against this to prevent a dump of BALN.

@Chiel

All proposals now are based on the sICX amound at the time of liquidation. Keeping the same strategy but changing it to the USD value during the liquidation might be considered more fair to some.

This part I think isn’t that much of a sticking point and makes the data-analysis side of things more difficult, but open to it.

[McLucks]

Hey Team, I think that the activity on the channel is really positive and I believe that we’ll find a resolution. I think the fact that there were so many proposals being voted on previously, all at once, diluted the vote.

I do think that as a community, the majority of us want to rectify the unforeseen losses experienced by borrowers. I personally didn’t get liquidated but was fortunate as I also didn’t factor in what reverse rebalancing would do to my liquidation price.

I do think that we should agree on 1 proposal to take to a vote and proceed on that basis. I feel that failing to agree on an appropriate remedy will have a negative impact on Balanced as a whole, so it’s in all of our best interests to exercise some empathy and collaborate to find an agreeable solution.

[Dangooner]

Hi Chiel - Would you be prepared to draft a proposal based on your first one but with your suggested refinements? If so, I think we should throw it up for a vote. Id be willing to pay for it. I almost got liquidated and totally empathize with the people who did.

[7AOptions]

I hope there are more people like you. I’m glad you can see that it was more than just people over leveraging.

[Jahpete]

Why is it so important to you that there is no refund? What do you stand to gain / lose if there is / isn’t a refund.? I can only think of one thing. If there isn’t a refund we all lose value in BALN as people move / stay away from the platform do to bad word of mouth. Now can you think of anything you would gain or lose if there is a refund? Or is it just your crabs in a bucket attitude?

[7AOptions]

It has nothing to do with gambling …I’m not going to go through my experience again. I think people here have explained what happened many times. If this wasn’t such a big deal (reverse rebalancing), why did we have emergency votes and why was everyone in favor? People are claiming this is normal in DeFi. I’ve been in defi for a long time and I can clearly say this no way normal. I have leveraged traded before and this is no way normal. All people are trying to do is help out those that got wiped out… not give them full refunds. People that are so against this, seem to have a different philosophy on life.

[Jahpete]

Balanced has an identity crisis. Do you want mainstream adoption or do you want it just to be a clique club for devs, and nubes only allowed to use optimus because its safe for their Simple needs?
If you want the former then there needs to be a refund of as much as possible (without Balanced losing out) to the affected accounts and a solution put in place to stop this event from happening again.

If you want the latter then by your reasoning notho g needs to be done since everything works just fine.

I’m pretty sure though that most of the community agree the rebalancing protocol is currently flawed, and this means the right thing to do is to refund what we can, improve the protocol and move on.

I say let’s get the refunds sorted and then concentrate on a solution.

[7AOptions]

I agree with what you are saying… I have talked to people that understand but they give examples in how they lost on leverage before, so they think this is the same and since it happened to them (albeit on a different platform), it should apply to everyone. Then they just say, you knew the risks.

[Tob5222]

@Chiel i think keep the sicx rather than the bnusd amount as that’s what was seized and in the emergency reserve ready to roll!

I also think changing the baln to sicx will eradicate the issue of excess baln being thrown into the market as I do agree with baln holders that isn’t ideal for them!

20-24th liquidation can claim!

@benny_options is there a way to time lock any sicx from being dumped also? Does anyone else think this will help? I think if you could claim it but I takes 30 days to unstake or something would be pretty good so that also can’t be dumped but just my thoughts!

Respect to everyone posting we seem to be acting more rational … maybe the cooling off was a good idea after all!

[Tob5222]

I think also it may be helpful to let people know that its a 35% fine so it’s returning 25% of the icx and reducing it to a 10% fine instead rather than just refunding money for the sake of it! (If I’m correct saying that this is the case)

[ICONspartan]

Thanks @benny_options on elebarting on the topics. To the rest I would say please focus on refining proposals.

I think it is a good idea if we get a proposal through we can do an airdrip on the BALN tokens so it doesn’t get dumped on the market. So maybe a weekly payout of BALN that can be claimed.

Maybe someone here also has the skills to do some data analytics on what happend in the black swan event between 20th - 24th of January? So we can explain what happend and tell the story with data.

Personally I only voted for the proposal that I tought was best suited. I rejected the rest. I think a lot more people did the same. So I think we can manage to get a 67% agreement on a new proposal if it is only one. I think everybody is willing to help each other.

[Tob5222]

I think id you propose to claim baln the baln holders will reject it.

Judging by twitter opinions, throwing baln into the market wasn’t sitting well with a lot of holders.

Sicx is what was taken it makes no difference to the market returning a proportion of it back!

I think also wording the heading of the proposal as a return of the fine - rather than a refund would probably help votes also especially second time around!

I do think @ICONspartan wouldn’t have been the only person just voting for their desired result so think that this proposal will be a higher % not sure about 67% but worth a shot

[Dangooner]

I agree that return of a % of the fine sounds better than refund