Increasing DAO share of fees for more POL


First off, massive respect to you and for what you have done for ICON over the years. I follow ICON closely everywhere and you are the epitome of a positive, productive, hard working community member. I will look into your post further and thanks for the response.

1 Like

Also, our focus should be to spend some of our DAO funds on a continuous audit cycle with FYEO. Then we utilize the ICX funding for cross chain. We need to slow down and get audited before a greater chance of a cross chain hack. We should not feel rushed. Balance is awesome and succeeding:)

Last but surely not least, just like the ICX team has put on hold, for good reason, the 200 million cross chain grants UNTIL the markets recover.

Balanced needs to follow suit, we’re throwing away BALN in an all time lows. Let the markets recover then use KARMA. I have no issue selling BALN if needed in a normal market, but in a bear market it makes no sense.

We should be utilizing all our BNUSD in the bear markets instead of it sitting there to buy POL. Let’s be wise stewards.

I propose the DAO buying 250k of additional icx and use 250k BNUSD for liquidity for our highest fee pool. Spend 100k on some sort of budget friendly continuous audit.

Have a great weekend, y’all.

Cheers :heart:

For me, the big take away from this vote is the community committing to the improvement of Balanced’s future prospects.

1 Like

First I want to apologize for my harsh and bitter words. This change took me off guard and I became unbalanced then I overreacted.

On the first day when the vote started, poopster and Chiel claimed that we will get only 10% fees less then before, nobody corrected them and explained that they will get 50% less from what we get now and this I find missliding.

Some developers see this DAO like a piggy bank. I give them my empathy, they must be living in central London or some other unfortunate place where rent and food on the table is so hard to pay.

I find it very troubling to see vote power going into the hands of few who with this vote first chase away users from investing, accumulate cheap coins, and after 1 year change it back to lure more users. This pump and dump will not make us loyal community.

My portfolio is around 75% Icx, 20% BALN the rest is little bit everything, I invest in Omm 0.01% as their tokenomics did not attract me. With this change Omm will not look more attractive, in fact it will be weaker as less users will use ICON DAOs.

I think the best course of action is to 50% goes to bBALN holders and the other 50% goes to the DAO. This BALANCE also sounds great for marketing. The better bBALN APY is it will generate more users, more users - more fees.

For those who want to sell ICX and BALAN from DAO and invest in BTC and ETC they are giving the whole ICON community the message that they are in the wrong coin.

I agree Balanced needs to have its own liquidity but first it needs to do that with Icon ecosystem pairs, then with each chain we conect do them. All this can be done without taking this drastic step hurting dBALAN holders.

If this vote wins, we die-hard fans, who choose to stay with balan through the next bear market will be punished for being loyal. With this vote approved I will not reinvest in BALN and my dBALAN will slowly melt away making this investition pointless.

If Balance ship stay on this harmful course I ask you all to correct injustice and temporarily allow withdrawal of BALAN funds without penalty. Then I can change the time period to 2 years and sell them at the peak of the bull market with the rest of the rats who will again run away at first sight of a storm.

I beg the Icon team to get involved in decision making, to start making some proposals and put us on the right course.


Price action of BALN has been terrible since using Karma. We now have OMM price action because of dilution. Just like I said would happen. Diluting long term holders is frustrating. We can choose from this point forward to use ICX through Karma but we should not increase the supply of BALN. We should burn Baln. Get it on Kraken.

The truth is long term stakers get diluted, I don’t want to hear about the fees we gain because of more POL as dilution is the problem.

I’m fine with giving up fees to not get diluted.

It would be tax advantageous to get rid of all fees to the stakers, and instead burn Baln for long term holders.

I mean tax wise it is somewhat silly, being diluted and then receive dividends. It’s simple run BALN like CZ would. Burn the token and don’t hand out dividends.

Y’all we need to go a different direction as investors are wise to not want dilution, at the same time they would prefer a token burn over dividends.

Finally, and most importantly, this will also make BALN a lot less of a security token which should be paramount to consider changing now:)

This will be my last post for a while, just wanted to share my thoughts and opinions, but the great thing is I’m just one voice. I could be wrong and that’s the greatness of a DAO because many voices are better than a few. One thing is certain, we are all supporters of Balanced:)

Lots to think about.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is “dilution” every day of the BALN supply going to liquidity providers.

Currently nearly 500 BALN to go the BTCB / bnUSD and ETH / bnUSD pools every single day.

By providing POL to these pools then the DAO will essentially earn back the BALN over time whilst also not giving it away to “the cartels”.

This is on top of also generating more fees for the DAO, BALN holders and making the platform more via enough stable liquidity.

1 Like


If we’re being honest, it’s been terrible for a while.

This might be where we have a difference in opinion. I feel like burning BALN or getting listed on a major CEX are akin to cosmetic changes. Do they help Balanced’s products at all? What problems do those actions solve?

Those actions might give the price of BALN a bump, but it does nothing for our products.

I’m my opinion, the 2 questions we should be focusing on are:

  • How do we get more bnUSD minted?
  • How do we get more trading volume?

I can agree with your points.

My reason for an exchange is look at UNIFI Protocol, the main worker of that project was from Sesameseed PREP team. Remember, the first PREP to offer extra rewards on the ICX blockchain.

Anyways, Balanced imo, is a much better project, but UNIFI market cap is that of 10x of balanced. Balance falls when tokens fall but does not rise or have exchange like token days.

So an exchange would help BALN get into more hands.

As far as usage on our platform and improvements, we need ICX to succeed. and be the DEX of ICX. Maybe months down the line garner cross chain customers. But we shouldn’t rush this

We need to be realistic, many projects on Coinbase and Kraken are poorly run, no real use cases, no hard value, this is crypto after all. BALN, is amazing, well besides our daily transaction volume on the stats page never working.

We will get more transactions on Balanced as ICX grows.

As far as software improvements we need to start with a continuous audit cycle with FYEO.