500 characters is not a lot, but I will give it a shot! If that doesn’t seem enough, we can use your idea to solely provide a link to the full description/proposal. In-app is the cleanest, so everyone feel free to jump in if you have an idea for a short but comprehensive proposal description.
I can understand that this would make things more difficult for the data-analysis and I agree that at this point it is not much of a sticking point as long as the ICX price does not change too much. We can leave it at sICX.
Sure! I will draft something tomorrow. In the meantime I am curious whether people think we should add some (linearly) scale or just keep a straightforward percentage. We need quite some extra votes, so we need a proposal that most good willing BALN stakers will support.
Thats great! My preference is a simple % return of the penalty. Its easier to grasp for us less tech savvy voters. I also think most BALN stakers will have made up their minds one way or the other by now. Saying that I do agree with Tob5222 that the proposal should clearly state its a % return of the penalty, and not just a general refund for liquidated positions.
I don’t think a waiting period would help much. It would basically only mean that the people that would dump, dump a little bit later.
As the whole goal of this proposal is to show goodwill, within certain constraints, I think that adding a waiting period sends a less strong/clear message to the liquidated, while still costing the same.
I like the simplicity of your proposal. I’d suggest two small modifications:
Return less to those who were liquidated earlier than to those liquidated later, scaled linearly from first liquidation to last. This is a result from the detailed analysis I did which showed that the later liquidated people suffered more loss and also simply reasonable because those earlier liquidations were riskier to begin with and happened before the negative feedback from rebalancing kicked in.
Allocate some goodwill support payout to those who held all the way through based on their loan on Jan 20th, since that point gives a better measure of how much they had been supporting Balanced.
Not really sure what will increase support for the proposal though. Downside of the above adjustments is that it will probably just make the proposal harder to understand. You’ll have my vote either way.
It makes sense to do a linearly scaled refund but I’m afraid it will complicate the matter even more and lead to more disagreement and arguing. Maybe we want to stick to what was suggested from the start and return a certain percentage of the collateral and not over-complicate things?
I think what most no-voters were against last time was to involve BALN, and I can really understand that as they are worried about its price action. I think we should only spend the emergency fund of sICX on this refund and not involve BALN.
So 1/4 was rejected by a large margin. Should 1/5 or 1/6 collateral be considered in order to attain 67% approval? Seems like we need to meet in the middle here, or we’re kind of wasting time with a 1/4 vote again that already was rejected.
IMO, Removing 100k Baln may get a few more votes but it won’t turn the tide, and we need to come to a quick resolution that has a chance to pass through.
I love the DAO structure, the community is great, Balanced is a great platform! I hope everyone can compromise some here.
I think more people will vote yes this time after they have studied the case more about what went on in the liq event, no BALN involved this time, only one vote and they just want to get over with this case so that we can move on. If it gets rejected, the issue won’t go away and we will just make matters worse. I think most BALN stakers realize this now. They are not dumb. We should cast a similar vote again asap.
I feel we should come to a compromise, we all want Balanced to succeed here. I’m strictly stating 1/4 will most likely not pass shouldn’t we try for 1/5 or 1/6? I feel we all need to put our emotions to the side and think of a feasible resolution, not slightly changing or rewording the failed proposal.
Each failed proposal will offer less of a chance of one actually succeeding, compromise is the way forward, that’s the beauty of a DAO.
You make a good point about changing the % returned. Although, Im not entirely sure the last vote didnt pass based on 1/4 suggested. The other options may have drawn support away. It would be good to see how this vote gets on as a single option. 1/4 return (3/4 of the penalty) provides enough for those thrown from the bus to rejoin the ICON moon shot, and it doesn’t seem like a massive row back on the liquidation terms in place before the crash. It’d just be altering the penalty to make it less punitive.
The only proposal that will get my positive vote is the one takes into account the price a person was liquidated at.
Right now that would be the one @Chiel suggested, WITH the additional changes from @particleX.
The first liquidations started at around $0.90. Why should someone who was liquidated at that price get the same treatment as someone who was liquidated at $0.60? Don’t tell me it’s because their collateral was locked.
I think the 1/4e is not really the problem. I also think a 1/3e would be a good proposal. Its more the BALN that was in the proposal but that is still a guess.
What I would propose is a 1/3e refund scaled lineary. So the people that took on more risk get less. I don’t think all ICX in the emergency fund is needed for that. I would be curious how much would be left.
2nd the people that had to sell of all their assets to avoid of being liquidated need to be compensated. Is this a good idea to use the rest of the emergency fund for that? How much would that be? And do we want to deplete the emergency fund fully?
It’s moving more away from Cheils original proposal. 1/4 was the most hitting. Less options will gain more votes as we have seen people didn’t vote on it before wanting another option.
I was liquidated at the end so a linear proposal would benefit me but would it lose others votes? Or would they hop on as they have no choice … I don’t know
I see what you’re saying here also! It is more risk. For me I wouldn’t split hairs over this BUT if I proposal had this in I would still vote for it just to be clear
Thanks for all the responses! It’s very difficult to predict which proposal structure will get the most support but I will put down some thoughts/suggestions first.
I Think most/all agree that changing 100k BALN to 100k sICX is a quick and easy change to get some extra support.
While watching the voting proces I noticed that at the very beginning of the vote the approval was very low for all proposals. Personally I had expected a fairly positive booster start (caused by quick voters having lost valuable assets) with more rejections later on. Since the opposite was true this might indicate that we had more emotional rejecting voters than most had anticipated. So language and the description is probably an important point. Some solid suggestions were to drop terms like ‘refund’ and alter the title to something like: ‘Partial return of the liquidation penalty’.
Furthermore, the question remains whether we should keep all returns equal or adjust it to some linear scale. If im honest the scale would be most fair and I think most people agree with that. However, I also understand the comments saying that we should not make the proposal too complicated and stick with something close to the original. Changing to a scale will bring some challanges.
If we would add some scale the question remains what this would look like. The original proposal was clear with a 1/4 (25%).
starting the scale at 25% and scaling up from there would ask for more sICX than the original proposal so can’t happen. I think we must accept that the refined proposal should use equal or less assets than the original one.
Scaling up to 25% could happen but will (significantly) lower the returned assets. An extreme example of 0-25% would result that only the borrowers liquidated at the very end will get the same as originally proposed. Something like 18%-25% could be considered.
We could drop the 25% all together but this would mean that the proposal is fairly different from the original. We could do some math however to figure out what scale would fit inside the original point to redistribute the same sICX as the liquidated sICX deposited into the reserve in the first place. This will make the proposal more difficult on the math/analyse part but would still have a clear and understandable message. I would be willing to take a crack on the math on this if someone could show me how I can retrieve/collect a list of liquidations with timestamps. I could make a small spreadsheet script calculating the sICX destributed while varying the scale percentages.
Lets keep it in line with the first proposal as much as possible