Liquidation Fee Refunds would be a stand up act. I support this.
4 Likes
Everybody is just making excuses. You took on too much risk and trying to blame the rebalancing mechanism.
People were whining before when their icx got sold off and their loan repaid and now people are whining cause the situation is reversed.
You should not get reimbursed because you didn’t know all the risks associated. That is on you
So why not pay off the loan then?
I just would like to know why the UI doesnt mention the high liquidation fee. Liquidation means that your collateral gets sold in order to pay back the loan. It doesnt mean that the excess amount automatically goes to the dao. This isnt normal and doesnt have to be expected. If this should be the case this has to be mentioned on the UI.
1 Like
That’s not what liquidation means. When you get liquidated, it means you lose all your collateral. Not just the amount needed to pay back the loan.
Liquidation means that your collateral get automatically sold (even against your will) in order to cover your position/loan. You are talking about liquidations that happen when the value of your loan is the same as the collateral. Here fore safety reasons you get already liquidated at 66%, so in case of a fast crash the protocol can be sure they get the loan amount back. But the Rest, the 34% excess isnt needed to pay back the loan. There can be a penalty fee but this has to be displayed (which it isnt on balance) and this is normaly arround 5%.
Furhtermore normally not your whole collateral gets liquidated but only so much that the ratio is in order again. This is another flaw.
I don’t think you understood the risks involved. Naive to think only a portion relative to the size of your loan gets liquidated
Should people not get reimbursed if Balanced is hacked and funds stolen then? Because that is a risk associated.
Not a relative comparison. Nobody got hacked.
I for sure support the reimbursement in someway. If the changes that are being voted today were implemented yesterday I think everyone would have been okay because they could have sold their collateral and it wouldn’t have been locked. Reimbursement so everyone can start equal terms and understands now what can happen.
2 Likes
They should have understood the protocol before taking out a loan in the first place. I sold some icx to pay off my loan as the market was going down so I had no chance of liquidation. Do I get reimbursed too then? No reimbursements for anybody. Should have understood the risk involved
Thanks for you opinion but I still disagree with your stance and stand by mine.
2 Likes
Yes, this is the best proposal!
2 Likes
Yes, the reverse balancing and extreme market volatility has led to liqudiations for community members who have been trying to do the right thing. The reverse balancing kept increasing loans, and it was hard to get extra capital from exchanges withdrawn to balanced in time to prevent the liqudiations!
I got rekt, lost 27k ICX and am fully screwed. Please, anything to help out would be great. I’ve been a user since the start of Balanced. My life savings of ICX are all gone 
2 Likes
Firstly I am def in favour of reimbursing liquidated users as I feel the rebalancing and locked collateral is flawed. I also think the 34% fee is not what I would expect from Balanced.
I think an auto anti liquidation option should be available which simply sells ICX off to keep LTV correct.
I don’t think locking collaterol should ever happen. At the point this needs to happen to protect the platform then ICX should be sold instead.
34% liquidation fee is too high. Do we want to be making money from people being liquidated? Should be to cover costs only.
What a great marketing opportunity to become a platform where its impossible to get liquidated.
As I said I would support the returning of collateral to liquidated users less a reasonable fee. I sure don’t want to profit from people losing everything.
Liquidation should be to protect the platform from loss and not for profiting imo.
4 Likes
I hundred percent agree with your view. Well written and some good ideas for improvements for the platform. That feature would for sure bring more users.
3 Likes
I agree with you mate.
I think balanced is atracts new defi users to its platform so it needs to be more user friendly in terms of the way it operates.
Im sure most of us would have not expected the out come of mass rebalancing and combined with locked collateral means some people had no option but to wait and watch their holdings get liquidated.
An auto sell of feature is awesome yes. Also just the option to sell off collateral in the first place would be much welcomed.
I agree to refunding users sICX that was liquidated and sent to the Emergency Fund so they at least get something back and arent left empty handed.
Id also agree the fee is much too high long term. Max I would say would be 25% but even that is high!
Those that can take the advantage of liquidations could profit instantly and get back into a safe position due to whale status or bots programs. The DAO shouldn’t receive anything from those being liquidated or at most a very minor amount such as 5%
2 Likes
Very relative. Both are risks associated with using the platform. Both would be considered emergencies, as this one obviously was. Both should be compensated with the emergency reserve fund.
I agree that the reverse rebalancing has literally just screwed it. At no point should any liquidation price or stop limit just change.
1 Like
I have two accounts. My larger account I had to time on due to the stop moving so when I checked it (thinking I was in good time) it had basically hit it and then proceeded to hit in front of my eyes before I could pay it.
My second account I paid it off - that I wouldn’t want a reimbursement on as I caught it even though that too was going up. I also sold coins at a loss but that’s the nature of crypto.
However moving a stop limit is something I have never seen and something I think is unacceptable … it seems when you near close they deliberately raise it to take it
1 Like