Mission of Balanced Governance

Initially raised by @Vasque:

Ultimately we need to agree as a community what it is we want to achieve, and what is the long term goal for Balanced. Once we have determined that, it will be easier to make smaller decisions as we have a clear longer term goal to work towards.


The goal should be maximize the value of the protocol. This comes from the basic principles in American corporate finance policy, where decision makers are obligated to maximize shareholder wealth.

SAGE Reference - Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia.

EDIT: May not be actually by law according to Wikipedia here but the dodge v Ford case is referenced in academia


Myself, i have a pretty limited understanding of how Balanced works, and im sure im not alone. This thread could be benificial for those wanting a better understanding of the concept. In laymans terms, how do you envision balance being succesful ?@benny_options

1 Like

Great Post, Ultimately to achieve everyone to benefit from this protocol. Evolve for the user. Think on the user then at the end baln holder will get the reward.

Among thought as below,

  1. Create a multiple choice of pair so everyone just think about Baln to exchange their token/coin. The similar competitor is Binance.
  2. Create a competitive lending platform with multiple pairs as collateral such as AAVE, COMP
  3. Create a multiple synthesis stock platform , the similar competitor is Mirror platform from Luna Chain
  4. Create a start up platform such as binance which user with many BALN staking can get more allocation to subscrite/ buy the token.
  5. Bring more chain into Baln.

Above are my thinking try to ask Baln governance to think about

Thank you Sir.

1 Like

I think @vasque has made a very good point. Where the DAO’s purpose should be to create shareholder wealth (through baln token price?). A well formulated mission statement could give some guidance as to how we expect to do that.

To illustrate this point, where do we stand on governance participation? I believe we can all agree governance participation is important for the long term succes of any DAO. But where do we place it in our priorities?

  • If we believe governance participation is a key driver of token price, we should aim for governance participation, and expect the token price to rise as a result.
  • If we believe Token price is a key driver of governance participation, we should directly aim for increasing token prices, and expect governance participation to rise as a result.

Where this distinction might feel trivial, it is very important for a lot of smaller decisions… For example, it would hugely affect the current token economics discussion.

@benny_options: the ford story was an amazing read :wink:


Ever since I got into crypto, I always wished there was a way to essentially never leave the crypto ecosystem. All of my assets from a physical one like a house to digital assets and stocks, I always dreamed of a way to just use them as collateral in a blockchain and get rewarded. Why get a HELOC with a traditional bank if I could collateralize the house on a crypto platform instead?

If I want to collateralize current stock assets, I can take loans against it. For example, M1 Finance will let me borrow 35% LTV on my stock portfolio and as low as a 2% interest rate with a $125 monthly fee. So, for a $100,000 loan in M1 Finance, that would be equivalent to a 3.5% interest rate. Which is pretty satisfying on assets I really don’t ever want to sell.

Maybe those conversations are on hold for years down the road here at Balanced. However, as someone that loves the idea of never selling my assets and just using them as collateral, this is the future I saw in Balanced with my crypto holdings.

Lastly, I have all of my ETH and MATIC in Celsius Network. While I don’t have a loans with them, I am earning interest on them.

I’d assume the people that are using Balanced are similar to me. Sure, there are the short term speculators that are only looking for short term loans, but my understanding is that OMM is for shorter term loans and Balanced is for longer term.

So, my hope is that the vision of Balanced is to incentivize long term holders, borrowers, collateral, synthetic assets, LP’s, etc with the underlying goal that the BALN token price appreciation is the ultimate goal.

I feel we need to either carve a specific niche of the market or we need to be the first to the market if we are going to work towards the price appreciation of the BALN token.

While we are the first Defi project on ICX, I think we need to do more to attract other users.


Definitely to collateralise assets and get bnUSD to do pay mortgages, etc.

There are 2 components this.

  1. Collateralisation. It is important to be able to collateralise as many digital assets as possible for the user to take up a loan for many years against their liquid or illiquid assets. Many people may own certain digital assets/token and would want to borrow assets to pay certain bills/etc without wanting to sell their assets permanently.

  2. bnUSD should be easily accessible and the ability to transact with it in mainstream places.

  3. Financial Services

It seems like everyone is pitching that Balanced is the decentralised bank of ICON. So what is #3 to Balanced? The participation of Balanced feels like a saving bank where you can deposit and withdraw money/loans. But it still does not allow people to make payment easily to different merchants, accept payment, incentives from using bnUSD to make payments, etc (think of credit card).

This is only just the consumer banking side. How about “investment banking” aspect? Could it potentially democratise users to investments? Maybe not just limited to the ICON ecosystem.


Wow, I really like this topic and discussion. Will chime in after the weekend.



Just reviving this thread to refrase the discussion about reimbursing people who are liquidated. Considering the primary mission of Balanced DAO is to add value for its token holders… To make reimbursing people that have been liquidated even worth discussing some kind of value proposition for the DAO needs to be considered.

While i truly feel bad for everyone that has been liquidated. And i dont agree with the current rebalancing mechanism, i dont think reimbursing liquidated position in any way can be considered the best use of DAO funds (the way things stand, i doubt it would even be a net positive).

Being liquidated sucks. and i feel bad for all of you (as i’m sure everyone does). But Balanced DAO isn’t about rainbows and sunshine. There’s a moral obligation to act in the best interest of the token holders.

Thanks for bringing this up. I think the value proposition is goodwill, which many have touched on in the thread you linked. Investing in goodwill is quite valuable in building a strong online community and core userbase imo.


Use stable coin from our dao fund to peg the bnusd. 1 to 1.