This is the issue! 0-25% you will potentially lose the vote of everyone liquidated at the beginning who will then assume they will get 0 and in their opinion why should someone else liquidated get a refund and them not!
To how many people that is I don’t know but I think you’re then splitting the voters into other category and therefore more rejections on the proposal.
It’s certainly not an easy task!
At the end of the day:
Person A. liquidated at 90c (as @Collapseby2050 said the first was hit) has lost 100% of collateral
Person B. Liquidated at 30c say has also lost 100% of their collateral! The risk was less for person B but percentage lost is still the same …
Yes that’s the point. Adding a scale is fair in my opinion but must be considered carefully as the point is to win votes from both sides and not lose them. The original scaling proposal had a large support so I do think many voters are open to it. My personal interpretation is that some voters did not like the fact that it emptied all sICX from the reserve.
So a way around this is to not focus so much on the percentages in the proposal description but keep it ‘simple’: the sICX destributed is equal to the sICX obtained.
We could just add a scale to it. We could even include the 100K sICX in this pool since this will basicly only come from users that got liquidated very soon and had a higher risk. Resulting that the entire proposal will not ‘cost’ the protocol anything at all.
And let me stress that I am just trying to find a fitting solution that has a chance to pass. In no way I intend to have the final say in things as it was ‘my proposal’ we should all feel confident about it.
For me this seems like the way to go. I don’t think we should forget that the 25% proposal was not clearly the best scoring. It was higher than giving back nothing, by basically a technicality. Thus I would cap the max at 25%.
I personally do think there is a big difference between person A and B. Firstly, as @particleX calculated their losses are not exactly the same and furthermore, person A had a high risk portfolio and was either unprepared or deliberatly playing a high risk/high reward game. Person B however got caught up in a black swan event.
Keep it as short, simple as possible. Also state the refund does not come out of DAO funds, this is coming from a different fund, not related to DAO funds. As I can only see 375k sicx in the DAO fund on the stats page. I think showing exactly where the sicx is coming from, that it does not take away from the DAO funds shown on Balance stats page is very important. Can someone put a link on here showing exactly what is in the emergency funds…
I think it would be good to get the vote and distribution of funds going sometime this month, sooner rather than later, because from a TA perspective I personally see volatility kicking in between March and April (can go both ways really). It would be a relief for many if they got returned their fair share before this in order to plan accordingly.
Using 100k sICX instead of BALN is a good idea, and after reading the discussions, I now understand the benefit of the scaling solution. It sounds like the fairest way to go.
Again I know Twitter isn’t the be all and end all but a lot of people denied all proposals as they didn’t like any! Maybe this tweak not dumping baln in will catch their eye also! One of them had 120k baln which I think is probably quite a large holding!
Hey guys, I really, really, really think someone that knows where a link is that shows that these funds are in the emergency reserve and are not taking away from the BALN DAO fund is extremely important. More than anything, this will help clarity. We need a link to this. This link should be used in the proposal, this clarity is necessary. If. BALN stakers know that none of these funds are actually coming out of the main DAO fund I think it has a chance to pass with a simple 1/4 return. If some of this money is coming out of the DAO this will be hard to pass.
I’m not sure people already agreed on how to scale the “refund”. Maybe everyone could post how they would like to see the numbers (e.g. 18-25%)? Then we could “vote” by using the “like” system.
Concerning the 100k sICX for the borrowers, there was no clear plan yet how to distribute. Only that there would be a chosen block to check the height of the loan and divide the reward pro rata. Maybe we could take the latest block in the period for that? Another option would be to take the average of everyone’s loan over the full period (20-24) and then base the reward on that.
Edit: apparently you can create a poll. Great UI this forum.
