I agree with what everyone else is saying with doing the full refund for the liquidations. As once the emergency votes when in that could have saved almost everyone on this.
Doing the full reimbursement would look really good in the eyes of the community and be good news to come out and make balanced look good.
Cause right now I’d say major you people feel burned by how the rebalancing works and most will not use the platform again. So doing a full refund could keep a good portion of those users and possibly bring in more.
Also just thought of maybe instead just refund the Sicx and the loan amount so that it’s back to what it was prior to liquidation and allow people to choose what they want to do? Keep it as is or pay some day. As with the new limits some could have access to their collateral now to pay it down.
This looks good on balanced and helps keep the usage up so everyone is happy
Yep that sounds reasonable to me. That way everyone is on a equal playing field and looks good on the community. People can make their one choice pay it back just like everyone on the currently.
I think those who have been liquidated should be given a chance to refund the liquidation amount and solve the loan problem for a certain period of time. This is a problem caused by reverse rebalancing that we didn’t think of, and it’s an important problem between balanced and users. If Bitcoin continues to fall and icons continue to fall in the future, reverse rebalancing will lead to continuous liquidation, and no one will use balanced and use loans. As evidence, balanced deposits and loans continue to decline. Some say to use Optimus. If so, I don’t understand why bnusd loans are needed within balanced. Users can borrow BNUSD with assets as collateral from om. Why would you use a balanced loan at risk? There is not much reward for risk. In balanced, it may be better to only supply swaps and liquidity. Many users are leaving due to the balanced loan problem, and in our community, many people are struggling and trying to leave due to this problem. I want you to know the seriousness of the problem.
It’s all good people saying ‘use Optimus‘ but balanced network has advertised themselves as ‘the bank of icon’ you shouldn’t have to go anywhere to support the icon movement.
Also people say you should have read the terms etc. having to go through white paper to see how a site works isn’t exactly user friendly.
The reverse rebalancing should have been on the ‘how it works’ which I’m sure we ALL read while doing the collateral.
Just my 2 cents here. I am probably one of those who got liquidated. And I say probably because I know my liquidation figure and I’m pretty sure it has hit, based off Binance number not based off the oracle, and I don’t have the balls to even login into Balanced at the moment to have a look.
I, like many, have been holding since ICO. I, like many, probably didn’t read the whitepaper but I do refer to the docs page time and time again. Re-reading the liquidation section again and I guess it didn’t not click with me that I could lose ALL my collateral. I guess I was thinking of partial liquidation and not full liquidation. My mistake.
I’m pro-refund obviously but I am at the mercy of the DAO and it’s voters. There are some here that are against the motion and that’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion and votes. But, to them I ask you this, think as a DAO and how the DAO can grow and solve this problem. One of many I’m sure.
Also. People are saying ‘you aren’t taking a loan you’re minting Bnusd’
This is also true, not that I knew that at the time of taking ‘the loan’.
That being said balanced network marketed this as taking a loan, not as minting Bnsud and I don’t think this is something you need to then research if socials are calling it a loan!
Nicely put. For those that are up in arms about a “refund” ~ there is no proposal yet. A lot will need to be worked out before there is a proposal. See what’s on the table and participate in the discussion before taking a stance.
I am definitely open to hearing what the refund would look like ~ once we get to that point.
~ I clicked post/send while still composing my thoughts
Thing is even if I didn’t liquidate a portion myself I still I wouldn’t be opposed to people looking for some answers.
There does seem to be a lot of people with the same opinion on twitter also but it does make me wonder about the ‘team spirit’ and being part of a community.
Sorry now I see the rest of your reply! I just feel icon needs everyone to stick together right now even without a possibility of refunds. Some of the people on twitter are savages to people who have lost everything and i find it quite distressing reading peoples replies to others who are hurting
I have another idea but im not sure if it is possible. I am pro reimburstment but i fear it will not make the vote because some people feel that they took a risk and lost. This is in some cases true but in other cases definitly not.
How about we only reimburse (the liq. fee for) the people that did not have their collateral locked prior to the dump? If your collateral got locked during the dump (due to rebalancing or price drop) we show sympathy as a community. All users that where already at or above 30% TLV… well bad luck you took a risk and you lost.
People in this thread think they might get a full refund. This is not possible guys. Just so you know we are just talking about refunding the fees here.
I still think reverse rebalancing a loan 40-50% doesn’t make it a decent playing field so in my opinion they should do more - but it’s also just my opinion
I don’t know the answer to who made it but the liquidation trigger price is clearly shown. All you have to do is your collateral icx*trigger price to find out that there is a liquidation fee. Furthermore it was also in de docs.
As a borrower I read it in the docs but I also would have noticed it otherwise in the UI due to the reason I showed above. Could it be clearer in the UI? I don’t know maybe. For me it was very clear. So I would not agree to refund the fees based on that reason. The rebalancing however was hard to anticipate so that is the discussion here.
Liquidation only means that your collateral gets sold to cover your loan. Thats it. Since this already happens at 66% there is an excess amount of 34% which would be a penalty fee. This penalty fee is not displayed.
I feel for all you who lost all their icx, especially the ones who are here since day 1. Fortunately, i did not get liquidated, but it could have also been me. I will vote in favor of everything that will (partially) refund the ones affected. I don’t care if it would cost me money as a $BALN staker.
Moreover, i would strongly advise the DAO to add some sort of exam a user has to pass before the address will be allowed to interact with the $BALN minting contract. It is too easy to just say people should have read the whitepaper. The ux made it so easy to mint $BALN (and thats a strength), but it is the dao’s responsibility to also protect the users who do not take the nesseccary time to fully understand the rebalancing mechanism. If we really want to replace traditional banks, we should also step up and protect (uninformed) users that need it.
If we do not solve this in a humane way the balanced DAO won’t survive.