Agree 1000%. 1/3 is the minimum.
8 Likes
I still think the proposal @particleX gave is the best I have heard and I came up with a proposal that in addition to this we could also help the non-liquidated borrowers to some extent as they suffered some too. But you guys have to understand that liquidated borrowers like @IcxHodler got screwed heavily and got left with nothing. Sadly, there are many similar stories. Deserves as much of the emergency fund as we can give because this truly is an emergency.
3 Likes
I also agree i have been reading all comments since the start and today choose to comment my story they say we will get 1/3 back or 25% like i said i paid almost 80k in loans back so recieving 1/3 is like just getting the money back for the coins i sold at loss and someone will be making A big profit from us all getting liquidated which is extremely scammy so the balanced team has got alot of work to do and i really hope they dont try to profit from us stone called hodlers that got screwed on top of the 300k i put another 80k then got liquidated so 33% would cover just over what i tried to cover it with absolute joke.
2 Likes
I really understand the situation and you have my full support that a refund is fair but statements like this I dont understand.
1/3 is a full refund meaning the liquidation will have cost you nothing. So posts like 1/3 is the absolute minimum is not helping your case. 1/3 is the maximum. Dont mean to offend but that is the way it is.
But I put up my proposal so ill step back for some time to leave it for consideration
All other losses affects all borrowers and partly all asset holders
2 Likes
Meaning that if someone owed 50k and there balance was 100k and they where forced into liquidation because of system failure now there balance should be 50k meaning 50% but now being forced into liquidation then being told theres a penalty fee for being liquidated because the system clearly failed and now will recieve 33k back after doing everything to stop this from happening just feels not right and feels scammy and more should be done icx has a 200m incentive fund if they really care about there hodlers and community they should also help
Title: Do not return any funds in the Reserve Fund to anyone
Eligibility to claim sICX: NIL
Amount of sICX to use: NIL
In my eyes it is impossible to come to an agreement here, it will be even harder to satisfy everyone. So my proposal is to do nothing.
You do not discuss the terms of a divorce after the divorce, you do it while you’re still married. The same applies here.
DAO will take the time to discuss what to do with the funds next.
3 Likes
Couldn’t have said it better myself! This proposal i agree with most in the fourms.
At first I was reluctant to give anything back, but if I was in that position… I would really appreciate if this DAO was more human friendly, and not hawkish like a bank/exchange. We have the opportunity to do better.
LOVE that we are giving everyone the opportunity that had a loan during that period. Liquidated, or not. This is the way.
The only thing I would like to add is that maybe we can figure out a way to use some of these funds to restore borrower confidence again… But that may be better for another proposal.
Really support this view. Really love seeing the activity on this.
2 Likes
@arch @Chiel and anybody else proposing BALN compensation, fwiw it would be cleaner imo to just use the funding all from one place. The emergency reserve also has quite an excessive amount of BALN. Of course it’s up to you, but wondering if you’d adjust your proposals to have them use the BALN in reserve in order to make it possible to do it all in one transaction.
1 Like
1/3 would be the case if it weren’t for the shoddy rebalance mechanism that imploded during this black swan event. People are completely ignoring the fact that design flaws caused the out of control rebalance that cemented people in liquidation zone despite significant efforts repay the loan. The loan balances were increasing as quickly as they were paying them down due rebalancing. If the situation was only “they got liquidate during an unexpected plummet in ICX price” then 1/3 is perfect. But that sentence continues with “due to inadequate design of the DAO and lack of communication at the extent of rebalancing”. In a centralized environment balanced would be held liable in a court of law for not protecting their users…maybe the argument is moot because it is in a decentralized environment and it’s up to the users to decide. This situation certainly shows the negative aspects of a decentralized environment.
1 Like
I think using only 30% of the emergency fund like suggested by @arch is way too little in an emergency like this. And it favors the non-liquidated borrowers more than the liquidated borrowers, which is completely upside down imo.
3 Likes
I may have missed it, but could you edit this proposal to specify how the 100k BALN would be distributed? For example, pull data on borrowers positions at block height xyz, then distribute pro-rata based on the amount of debt. Just an example
I like all the 3 other proposals. Proposal of @Collapseby2050 is no point because if it’s a no in the votes then that’s the result. @iconist proposal which is based on @particleX proposal is best for a compromise.
1 Like
I’m pro 100% refund but it’s isnt going to sit well with others and you want a vote to pass!
33% much better but also you have to take into consideration what others on here are saying and not cut your nose or to spite your face!
If you push for 100% back when you could have got 25% you’d be pretty mad with yourself!
I lost 250k in the collateral as well as money I moved in to rebalance off other coins.
Obviously 100% back would be lovely. But I will not be turning my nose up to 25% and get 0% back!
The @iconist proposal favors the non-liquidated borrowers as well so I see this have a high chance of succeeding
1 Like
I’m just going to hop in to point this out again real quick. Based on some recent comments it seems this hasn’t sunk in for some people so I just want to try again to make sure you (and others) understand.
A 33% return would be giving back 100% of the value to anybody liquidated. There would be absolutely no economic penalty whatsoever, outside of losing leverage, so please please try to think this through by referring to this post. I’m hoping as many people understand this as possible in order to have the best result of a vote as possible.
2 Likes
Will do! Also a good idea to let the BALN come from the emergency reserve. What you describe here is indeed what I intended. One snapshot block somewhere between Jan 21 and Jan 24 and a distribution pro-rata the amount of debt.
1 Like
Exactly, 1/3 is perfect, then we can show goodwill to the non-liquidated borrowers as well as suggested before. I think this is the perfect option for everybody affected.
3 Likes
The non-liquidated borrowers also got an advantage that the liquidated borrowers did not have, after the recent votes by bringing the liq price lower (LTV).
3 Likes
And it’s important to give refunds based on the user’s collateral. A percentage calculation. Doesn’t make sense to split it evenly among all.
I left the specific block open for now and am open to suggestions. Otherwise also the distribution method that arch describes in his proposal could be used but that may overcomplicate things in my proposal
1 Like