I’m a little flabbergasted by this post and find it disingenuous.
After comparing the tokenomics of Balanced to other Defi platforms, especially OMM, I come up with the opposite conclusion. The initial tokenomics favoured stakers too much, and could have increased both the DAO and Workers’ share while still being fair. That said, I believe it was distributed this way in hopes of building a community.
I am really pleased with the development of Balanced. From the front and backend improvements, community engagement, and governance ~ I am impressed with what the community has built here.
As to the future of Balanced: What does success look like?
Without getting into crosschain and interoperability, I believe success looks like more fees.
More Liquidity, More Arbitrage Volume, More Fees.
Renting liquidity with BALN rewards hasn’t achieved the levels of liquidity needed. A prime example is the Eth:BnUSD pool. 20% of LP rewards to rent 40K worth of liquidity. That is not sustainable.
POL is the move. I want a lot of liquidity in pairs that can be arbitraged, more than what the DAO currently holds, and more still. The more volume our sICX/BTC/ETH pairs can sustain and keep arbitrage traders profitable, the more fees Balanced will make.
Moving from 60/40 to 30/70 almost doubles the revenue Balanced has to invest in POL.
Think of it this way, let’s say you have 1% of all the bBALN staked, currently, for every $100 in fees:
- $0.60 in fees to you
- $40.00 to the DAO (you hold 1%)
- $59.30 is gone, probably paying for the cartel’s super yacht
The result is $0.60 in your pocket and a $0.40 increase in your share of the DAO, so essentially $1.
With this change, for every $100 in fees:
- $0.30 in fees to you
- $70.00 to the DAO (you hold 1%)
- $29.70 is gone, the cartel will probably have to settle for a canoe
The result is $0.30 in your pocket, and $0.70 increase to your share of the DAO, so essentially $1.