Increasing DAO share of fees for more POL

Proposal Discussion
#21

I heard that blockchain developers are lazy as they are too rich to get up from the bed.
The fact that you don’t know that Balanced has Reddit proves my suspicion.

You are part of the developer team, maybe working on Karma or Optimus or Omm or whatever. I don’t see you are part of the community as you have conflict of interest.

Every important vote was published on Icon and Balanced Reddit before. As so many other community members I do not go to this forum to inform myself what’s new.

Also I don’t believe the claims of some of you here that you have BALN locked up for 4-years.

1 Like
#22

You have the points. fully support.

#23

Masta, Benny is transparent, hardworking, and honest. I’ve followed him from years through up and down cycles. Let’s not tear each other down on here,

Balanced stakers have continued to buy when others have sold. We feel ICON will succeed and that Balanced will succeed with ICON.

I guess these are my thoughts…. These are my honest thoughts, not financial advice.

We should consider not selling BALN at 14 cents to buy BTC or ETH. BALN and ICX are more volatile, why would we sell at all time lows when it can regain quickly. BALN will increase faster than BTC or ETH if ICON is successful. We can choose to sell BALN for BTC and ETH if altcoins move in a positive direction in the next two years. This will drastically increase our DAO instead of keeping a volatile asset through a downturn and then selling. Seems rushed, we need to have confident diamond hands and trust ICON will succeed.

We should be focusing on only buying back ICX in our DAO with the tremendous amount of BNUSD we have. If it succeeds it should appreciate much faster than ETH and BTC. We need to diversify when the markets are hot. This just seems like we’re throwing away BALN at 14 cents and missing out on Buying ICX at super low levels.

Let’s focus on security and buying ICX at these levels.

I support the first POL of ETH and BTC since it was a low amount. We can’t get into the habbit of selling low and buying high just out of rushing. We should also focus on supporting ICX tokens at all time lows. Create an OMM POL, Craft POL, and possibly others. We need to show support within ICON from here and not focus on using or DAO dollars to buy a ton of ETH and BTC at these levels.

POL priorities in order

OMM BNUSD
Craft BNUSD
FRMD BNUSD
KSM BNUSD
ICE and SNOW BNUSD
DOT BNUSD

We don’t have unlimited supply of BNUSD, we need to support the projects we’re connected to and then branch out as shown above. I don’t like the idea of investing our DAO heavily in Bitcoin or Ethereum.

Just my thoughts:). No decision is perfect, I could be completely wrong with my opinion above but wanted to share.

2 Likes
#24

Fully agree this point. should buy ICX as well from our bnusd. keep minimum bnusd in treasury.

#25

The thing is pairs like:
OMM BNUSD
Craft BNUSD
FRMD BNUSD

Does not really increase our profits. The volume in these pool are low and there are no arbitrage opportunities.

2 Likes
#26

While I don’t agree necessarily with everything you said, it’s important to note that the only way we acquire bnUSD in the first place is through fees earned by the DAO. By increasing the amount of fees going to DAO Fund, we have more bnUSD to use for POL and would need to sell less BALN.

@Balnmax if you want to minimize the amount of BALN sold for POL, and want to use bnUSD to buy assets at these levels, you would achieve your goal by supporting this proposal so we can actually get more bnUSD in the DAO Fund. There is ~650k in there right now, nearly all of which will soon be deployed for POL over the coming months, saving some for operational costs like the Parrot9 proposal.

Over the 661 days that Balanced has been in operation, it’s earned ~900k bnUSD. That’s ~1,300 per day on average, but was heavily front-loaded. We need millions of dollars in POL to really start making money. This proposal will significantly increase the speed of achieving that goal and allow us to sell significantly LESS BALN in the process.

Just to make this as clear as possible. Passing this proposal leads to selling less BALN from the DAO Fund for POL, because it increases bnUSD earnings, which will be used for POL. This isn’t my opinion, it’s a fact.

3 Likes
#27

I will change vote to yes and even give up 90 percent of fees if we stop diluting BALN through Karma. it is very frustrating for supporters that bought it down from over a dollar and now we’re giving it away at a discount. Not a good feeling.

Karma has not helped OMM price action. It has already dropped BALN 5 to 7 percent with just the Bitcoin and Ethereum buy.

We don’t need to dilute ourselves to buy liquidity, just raise the fees.

I don’t mind giving up my fees, it’s the dilution that’s frustrating.

I voted yes on the Bitcoin and Ethereum one time, but this should be used few and far between.

2 Likes
#28

Great, glad you see where I’m coming from here.

I want to address this briefly though because POL is significantly more beneficial for Balanced vs all other projects. We DIRECTLY earn more revenue from POL. Let me illustrate.

For every trade on Balanced, there’s a 0.3% fee. Currently, it’s split 50/50 as follows:

Liquidity Providers - 0.15%
Balanced Fee Pool (DAO Fund and bBALN) - 0.15%

When Balanced supplies POL, it gets its share of the 0.15% as a Liquidity Provider AND the 0.15% for the Balanced Fee Pool. When Omm or any other project does POL, the ONLY get their share of the 0.15% that goes to liquidity providers. It’s significantly more beneficial for Balanced because Balanced earns revenue from the DEX.

#29

Benny, respectfully I still can’t support anything that adds supply of BALN. Raising fee percentage to the DAO I can stand behind, but constant sell pressure of BALN to support future fees does not benefit early supporters that sustained the price of BALN that bought when others sold.

1 Like
#30

Yeah not trying to debate dilution right now and appreciate your constructive discussion. I’m just pointing out that you should not compare outcome of POL of other projects to balanced. It’s apples and oranges. The importance of POL to Balanced is much different to other projects.

#31

I do not pretend to know things here, I vote yes for the purchase of ETH and BTC through Karma because I was hoping people behind proposals know what they are doing. I also vote yes for the overpriced but not yet fixed Balanced stats page.

Now my confidence in all this has been shaken. I am also little bit trader, BTC/ICX trading par is at historical low. Double bottom was formed with higher low. We are near the end of the bear market. To sell BALN now for BTC or ETC is suicalldal.

I also believe BALN will overperform ICX. There is less and less BALN producing every day. BALN will start mooning and put us on radar when we get listed with some central exchange. Listing on KuCoin for example needs to be our priority. This needs to be our focus and not help some entity chasing their own hidden agenda by sticking hand in pockets of already stressed Balanced stakers.

What does BTC or ETC have with us? I am all in Icon, and even If I am not I will not use some shady third party piece of software with backdoor when I have native most secure blockchains in the world working.

It is clear that Karma Bond is trying to be her own thing, to have her own treasury with LP tokens and other crypto assets and Karma tokens owned by the team. And that is okay. But it is not okay to do that like parasite feeding on Omm and Balanced investors.
It seems to me that Karma Bond is not Balanced friend, it is our competitor.

2 Likes
#32

Masta,

is there an update to the 40k USD DAO supported “massive upgrade, new interface“ to the stats page?

You are correct, it is still broken, no improvements at all at this point, has not displayed daily trade volume properly for months. For 40k I’m expecting this update to be “Coinbase Level” of professionalism. Completely new interface.

I’m giving Parrott the benefit of the doubt they will fix this and come through on a HUGE upgrade.

I’m not a fan of karma either…. Why sell and dilute our token to buy another? No need to for just a slight increase in trade volume.

Now to the positives-

BALN has great tokenomics

We have a pretty active community

We are connected to ICONs success and I love the professionalism of the ICX team.

Benny, IMO, is a beast and an overachiever in all he touches.

Let’s be patient and trust the builders, they have not lost our trust or not come through on anything I can think of.

We are still early:)

#33

So I’m a little undecided on this vote.

I truly believe in Balanced future but it needs to be known Balanced Stakers have taken the brunt of the pain.

Balanced Stakers bought BALN down when some Workers and other traders sold.

The workers receive our ICX delegations, OMM gets to choose their delegations which is a huge win for OMM stakers.

The workers also get monthly rewards and then ask for more funding when the markets cool but when they were hot could have made hundreds of thousands of dollars with BALN heavily given out at the beginning.

Workers will now ask for more money from the DAO in bear markets like and get rich in the bull markets and the cycle continues.

Stakers used to get 70 percent fees to keep from getting diluted now we get 30 percent. To compound the pain we are now going to get diluted heavily through Karma.

Again, at some point it needs to be evident the stakers of Balanced continue to Bend when workers ask, ask, and ask in the bear markets.

#34

Our ICX delegations may only be a 1k a month benefit to the workers now but do not forget if ICX climbs up again that one out of many benefits to the workers can be a monthly reward of 5k to 10k if ICX succeeds and the markets get hot.

I just want the workers, mainly Parrott, to stop crying “poor” in bear markets and I’m willing as a Staker to keep bending.

I’m not trying to be rude or disrespectful, just sharing my opinions.

#35

I feel like you are ranting on because you are frustrated. I get it though; it can be frustrating to see changes that you may not fully understand, and we are in a bear market afterall…

I am not sure where you are drawing the conclusion about Karma Bond. They are not a competitor to Balanced. They are a partner and we decided to use them to help build POL - not them deciding to use us.

In regard to Parrot9 and their funding… Rome was not built in a day. I am highly confident in their ability to “Fix the stats page” among the other tasks they are undergoing - afterall they did the slick UI for Balanced that we all love. The majority of changes you won’t see happening “live”.

2 Likes
#36

I will point you towards Upgrade the marketing site and Stats page - Proposal Discussion / WIP: DFP - Balanced

Have a read. Good developers are expensive and currently they are getting paid a miniscule amount for the work they are carrying out not to mention these are token rewards not “cash” thus this would require them constantly selling tokens(which you would oppose).

Sure, if prices rise significantly then they will be having a fair pay, but they need to put food on their table and pay their rent today - not “tomorrow” or however many years down the track this growth may take.

1 Like
#37

I understand that developers are the engine of any blockchain and I want to support them also. But in human nature is to be corrupt, selfish and greedy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

DEX stands for decentralized echange but now we are in centralized control of cannibalistic P-reps developer cartel tumor, raping healthy part of Icon ecosystem. Now every vote at Balanced goes cartel way. They are one who make and control proposals. I watch many blockchains failed as monopolistic entities take control. We must not let this happen to Icon.

I liked ICON’s vision to give power to the people, to have passive income, to be your own bank, to be free, what this cartel is doing now is bad for the community and icon as whole. The cartel sees a Balanced treasury like their own playground.

Community is not a DEX piece of software or developers. We Balance stakers are one of the oldest parts of the community and backbone of Icon blockchain and we need protection!

Balanced community is heavily beaten, earlier there were thousands of votes now hounders of votes get the majority. From 929 bBALN holders holders only around 150 now are active voters and most of the voting power are cartel-s, and even if we have more active voters, the majority of people are sheeps, fearing change, they always support man in power, without knowledge and easily manipulated, I was one of them a few days ago.

We can not count on them. We need policing from someone with knowledge and integrity. Icon need buy enough vote power and start influencing Balance votes as neutral judges, to protect justice, to make some of proposals and do what is best for the community.

Also we need some sort of punishment force for those who abuse power, for example developer team who change ICONbet TAP stake earnings from 80% to 10% (with some secretive voting system they control) they rob ICONbet, after investigation these criminals need to be brought to justice. I see no difference between a hacker and someone who abuses power and robs people in some easier way. What happens to IconBet treasury? Icon needs to investigate that.

Similar things are happening now to BALN, crocodilian cabal making it worthless.

#38

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.

3 Likes
#39

What is the point of investing in Balanced now? Who will be your users? There is a new DEX on Icon coming with low fees.

I lock BALN for 4 years willingly knowing that I can sell them next time in the peak of the Bear market. This is nothing else but scamming, is the same fate waiting for Craft Network or Gangstabet? Lure Community in buying by promising them returns, then changing it later.

This is nothing else than you accumulate more power. Until now I invest in Balanced almost daily. No more!

If Balanced is not sustainable I need a second opinion, someone from the Icon team. Even then I expect a more balanced approach or having community and users at Balanced will not be sustainable.

#40

Stakers and Workers need to “be strong” in bear markets. Stakers have lost 90 percent plus too. Workers don’t need to pretend this is a full time job. Workers code on multiple projects. The only worker that has “cried poor” multiple times is Parrott. It looks like they used their 40k to buy ICX so they can now receive the voting awards they deserve with our votes. I gave them that suggestion, Which is good. They were throwing away 800 a month for not bonding properly. Parrott is very talented.

My issue is they “cry poor” for balanced all the time. That’s not a good look for Balanced. We should be able to show strength. I’m almost positive they run the Balanced Twitter as well as I can infer their writing insinuating the need for more funds from the DAO. The Twitter account should not ask where we will get cross chain funding from, like forewarning the community they will hit the DAO up for funds again.

Instead of tweeting, “community, where shall we get cross chain funds from?” It should read, “We are estatic as the markets seem to be recovering to apply for part of the 200 million ICX grant in the coming months.”

Balanced is the number 1 application for cross chain for ICON. Icon Foundation promised 200,000,000 ICX to be awarded to cross chain teams using ICON. Let ICX recover, utilize those grants and stop making Balanced “sound poor.”

I’ve voted with the DAO and Balanced, I am just giving honest feedback here. Sorry for my brevity or shortness, I have respect for Parrott and everyone on here just giving feedback from a BALN Staker.