Future BALN buy back

For all those that voted no to BIP11 I would like to get more specific input as to what you would like to see in a buy back proposal that would work for you. Is there different price points that you want or a different amount? I truly believe baln is at A great ratio against sICX and even if BIP11 fails I would hate to see this opportunity lost. I would like to hear any input possible on ideas to buy more baln, ie use ice funds, by baln the day before the snapshot, a specific ratio against sICX.


IMO, this topic is irrelevant to the current market conditions (no disrespect). I understand where you are coming from with this for good or bad reasons depending people’s point of view, I leave others to argue on this if they wish. However, I strongly believe the market makers will decide what BALN should be worth and not us by using the DAO funds to artificially and temporarily maintain BALN’s current price.

Besides, you initially wanted to instate a buy back condition and then refund the sICX not used during the buy back by the DAO. Now, let me take the following example in the meantime, let’s consider that the next scenario happens around the ice snapshot (unlikely but we saw weird things happening in this market), sICX increases in value by 5 fold whilst BALN remains at the same price or even increases by 2-fold, the DAO will lose even more out by following the proposal you are trying to push so hard to maintain the price. We will lose out in diversification too. The market is so unpredictable at the moment, with wild moves on the upside with randomly chosen coins/tokens and by way of your proposal you want to risk the DAO’s funds, this is a decision which can’t be taken lightly and should be viewed from different angles not only from the current price action angle you may only see. Maybe people will agree or disagree with me, I am solely talking for myself here but any proposal pushed on that topic will be rejected on the basis that we should leave the market decides what BALN is really worth as well as safeguarding the DAO’s funds for better use.

I forgot to add with your previous proposal highlighted in BIP11, if passed the DAO would have missed out on up to +175,000 ICE tokens which may be worth nothing or a lot (we do not know yet), this goes towards my point regarding the unpredictability of the market. By not being careful and misusing the DAO’s funds we can damage the platform’s growth which is not acceptable just for the sake of protecting the price temporarily.

First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to:

1.) Submit a proposal on the forum
2.) Submit a proposal on-chain
3.) Gather feedback

You had an impressive voter turnout and large support for something that happened over such a short period of time. Here are my thoughts on why I voted no:

1.) It was quite short notice given the amount of investment we were talking about

2.) Not enough fleshed out details of why you felt now is a good time for the DAO to reinvest in itself

3.) As written, it would take some development resource to build. I would prefer to think through precisely how we would execute the plan, weighing in the development cost. For example, executing a simple trade is not quite difficult, while building a contract that only executes at certain prices (i.e. building limit orders for our DEX) is a much bigger undertaking with similar results.

5.) Perhaps timing could be better. I’m not against using DAO funding to buy back its own tokens, but I do think if we’re looking for maximum impact of doing a buyback, it might be best to wait until we have more eyeballs/users. Balanced is adding some key features (bBALN, new collateral types etc.) and could be a better time to reinvest.

1 Like

If you would like any of your feedback to be taken seriously I would recommend your real name instead of disguising yourself as a member of the balance team. The dao as a whole does not agree with feedback and if you were part of the team you would know that BIP11 only failed by the vote of one person who happens to have a large vote. I am more than ok with that and it is how voting should work, but this vote and the involvement with it should give some insight to the team that this is a focus area that deserves attention.

I do not need my feedback to be taken seriously, you ask as to why your vote got rejected, as a person who voted against, I simply tell you why I voted against, if you are unhappy with my comments, don’t ask for it in the first place.

However being unhappy with my nickname or the fact that I do not use my real name is not the purpose of this forum or discussion to be fair then no need to start this topic, if you feel the need to comment on this matter. I finish on the nickname even if this is not the discussion (you got me started there), because I use myself a nickname such as ‘Baln’ did you see me misrepresent a member of the team in any way or do you see in my previous messages that I tried to impersonate a member of the team or claim to be a member of the team? If you did, I am sorry to say but you are delusional. I am afraid but you are going a long way off this topic, it just shows you are unwilling to listen to negative feedback, stay in your own bubble if you think only one person swayed the vote. It is unfortunate to see you asking for feedback and being so arrogant in your answer, because your proposal brought some food for thoughts on how to use the DAOs funds for better alternatives which ultimately is all what we want for balanced.

I do not expect any answer from you and if you decide to give one, please stick to the topic, if this goes off-topic again you won’t get one from me, no need to make the discussion worse, do not go off-topic in the future with another person because they have a different view, that’s pointless for the platform.

I have no problem with negative feedback I have a problem with the disrespectful tone of your comment.

Even without exact numbers, the math behind the vote shows that if roughly 400k votes that voted no would have voted yes that it would have passed, and I can assure that there are voters with that much voting weight and in this case they voted no.

And once again you are disrespectful in your response calling others delusional and arrogant,all while saying to stay on topic.