He can’t give it to you because there is none.
3 Likes
Had I known about this fee I would rather be margin trading elsewhere instead of borrowing on this platform. This high penalty fee is a major risk and should be a big disclaimer before taking up a loan and it’s very unprofessional to not even include it in the docs. What’s even more unprofessional is not giving it back to the liquidated when the platform failed completely. Whether Balanced is here with a bigger user base 1 year from now depends on this vote. I don’t see the point of bringing the refund lower than 1/3 when we have the money ready and it’s basically the liquidated users’ money. It’s the least that should be accepted imo as we would rather have our positions still open with our low liq price. Getting 1/3 back is basically capitulating and selling at the bottom. What else should the emergency fund be used on? Court cases?
6 Likes
Crypto loans should always be safer than margin trading. However, Bybit is safer than Balanced as it is now. If you had a 40 cent liq price on Bybit during the crash you would have kept your position and you could close it anytime on the way up for example. Here the funds are locked since way above 1 dollar mark and you can be liquidated anytime no matter how good your risk management is and you have to watch your position 24/7 and have funds ready at all times. Something is terribly wrong. Our affected users in our own community should get their 1/3 back. It’s their money when you think about it as their penalty fee went straight to the emergency fund. It’s the least that should be done in order to save face of Balanced.
4 Likes
Guys,
I would urge all of you to take the following under consideration: The goal of this discussion is to ask Baln holders to give a sign of goodwill to people adversely affected by last weeks short squeeze. The only role the balanced team has in this, is to facilitate the discussion, maybe guide it or deliver infrastructure. But in the end the Decision (as all platform decisions) will lie with the balanced token holders (especially the stakers).
An explanation how this would serve their best interest might be heard and considered. But in my experience, it doesn’t help to act entitled, or antagonising the people you expect to help out. The last couple of days the most vocal people participating in the discussion have done a bang up job of antagonising the people ultimately deciding.
I would like to propose a 1 week cooloff period, during which the discussion thread gets locked and everyone has some time to read up on the underlying mechanics of what happened. Especially but not limited by:
- Short squeeze
- Rebalancing
- Liquidation mechanics (and the reason they are important).
Another interesting topic of research would be how sudden price drops affect other markets. (especially the 2008 housing crash can be considered very informing).
3 Likes
I dont know how a vote cast at this time will pan out, but i can give the perspective of someone who has done research into rebalancing, liquidation fees and the use of leverage in general, and who has decided well in advance of the airdrop to pay off all loans, and move into unleveraged positions in the wake of uncertain times. I expect most people with sizeable BALN positions to have done the same.
While i went into last week without any leveraged positions, when shit hit the fan i took out a loan (above my normal risk tolerance) to help out people who got into a vulnerable position, and have allways profited from being in this position. And share the burden.
I also was a big supporter of a giveaway to help out the ones hurt most by the short squeeze.
For me personally, the entitlement, and the blame casting of some people here, have made me reconsider my position to a vote of no support.
The only reason i post this here, is becouse i know this is an emotional response to all the abuse flying around the forum the last couple of days. And i know most of the people who had their positions seriously diminished actually knew and understood the risks involved, and are behaving accordingly.
Personally i think it would be a shame for a few bad apples to decide the faith of the many.
3 Likes
I thought the same but as @benny_options said, it’s only a few loud, negative ones. Most affected ones are not like that. Blocking them helps being level-headed.
3 Likes
I am not sure about the numbers tbh. Hard to tell what is fair because I have been using Optimus during this crisis and have not been affected at all.
I think more discussion is not necessary, it can damage more than to gain. Everybody should have said what they needed to say. Shall we plan for a vote @benny_options?
2 Likes
Agree, let’s make a vote now!
3 Likes
The amount of deflecting and gaslighting going on is uncanny. Let’s bring this down to reality. This was and still remains a PR disaster. Many long time icx holders, many since ICO, have voiced their concerns and rightfully so. If you find it distasteful then there is a reason for that. If you care about still having borrowers then do the right thing. If you care about this not going to crypto news outlets then do the right thing. If you care about still having a reputable platform then do the right thing. That’s not emotions speaking. That’s the normal course of things when thing like this aren’t made right. So please do the right thing.
3 Likes
Yes i think its time to vote now seriously everyone has over discussed lets all stay calm and let the vote take place.
2 Likes
I feel like this thread has gone form
How to help the people effected by liquidations to how can everyone some type of refund.
This was about the people who lost EVERYTHING.
Yes I get some people had to put money in to save their positions that didn’t get liquidated but lost money I get it, BUT people who were liquidated put money in to save their positions and still got liquidated. They lost their coins and additional money that is not even be figured in to this.
Even if I was refunded 100% I would still actually be at a lost.
Let’s please keep this on the topic it should be.
This thread has really shown who cares about the over all community and who is only here to benefit themselves.
Now let’s please get this to a vote and stop delaying
1 Like
Hey folks - seems this thread got a bit of out hand since I last checked.
Going forward, this thread is to be used only to make new proposals to build goodwill or discuss parameter changes to existing proposals. Opinions on existing proposals will be expressed through voting on-chain, not through this thread. I feel it will be much more productive this way.
As for when to take this proposals to vote, anybody can submit a vote at anytime. I have spoken to a few community members that planned ~1 week of discussion prior to submitting to a vote. I’d expect them to make the proposals on Monday, given a new proposal was recently shared as well.
11 Likes
Thank you for stepping and glad to hear that their is discussions on when to put this to vote.
5 Likes
Hey @Chiel mate… loving your proposal. looking at all these comments your proposal covers two groups that seem pretty ticked off… Borrowers who are not liquidated and still using Balanced and borrowers that were liquidated. Can I get a bit of feedback into your proposal before it goes up?
What do you think of raising both amounts? We can make a bigger bang, I think it needs to be meaningful to both parties.
For borrowers that didn’t get liquidated, 100k BALN split between all borrowers at Jan 24th or whatever probably won’t do much eh? Too little split between too many… How about 500k? Maybe 750k? Your call, but the more the better, I think it’s a good time to spend some BALN on goodwill mate. This group put in a lot of work and you want their vote!
Liquidated borrowers… 25% is still taking a bit extra than was needed for liquidator payouts, but 33% would maybe be too unfair to people who maintained their position? How about a middle ground at like 30% eh? Maybe if you give enough BALN to the non-liquidated group, they’ll still support a 33% proposal? I know I would still support this proposal at 33% return and a fatter BALN allocation to borrowers.
idk mate, I’m no expert, but I’m thinking you can juice up this proposal and make both groups happier, get the vote of em both. Thanks mate…
1 Like
Title: Building goodwill
Return 35% of seized collateral to all borrowers liquidated between Jan 20th and Jan 24th 2022
Eligibility to claim sICX: Balanced borrowers liquidated between Jan 20th and Jan 24th 2022
Eligibility to claim BALN: All borrowers on a yet to be specified block between Jan 21st and Jan 24th 2022
Amount of sICX to use: 35% of the liquidated amount held in the emergency reserve.
Amount of BALN to use: 800k BALN from the emergency reserve.
Make Balanced great again!
10 Likes
I don’t think voters would like an additional big amount of BALN to be thrown into the market.
1 Like
Mate… maybe change that 35% to a 30%… Rewarding people for getting liquidated will rub people the wrong way. No higher than 33% else it definitely ticks people off because they were better off getting liquidated than trying to keep their position alive…
That’s not true. People sold funds and still got liquidated so lost other money and tokens!
It’s very hard to proportion I do admit! But they’re not better even at a refund of fees many will still be down hard
But I do agree not to rub others up the wrong way!