Use sICX in reserve fund to buy back baln

Use up to 25% of sICX in the reserve fund to buy any baln at or below .9 sICX to stabilize baln during the selling pressure leading up to the ICE snapshot. Any unused sICX will be returned to the reserve fund after the snapshot.

Personally I don’t have a strong opinion here. I’d kind of like it because it injects more sICX into the system to help stabalize bnUSD while also buying up BALN.

Downside is that it sells some of the sICX holdings of the DAO which already has like 2M worth of BALN.

Just wanted to add I am not a fan of discussion being started at the same time the proposal is made.
This means we can only discuss about if it should be yes or no instead of possibly any of the terms of the proposal.

Can’t say I am a fan of using the DAO fund to prop up BALN price. That seems like a poor use of funds, if the market wills it to fall, I rather it fall.
This move also reduces the ICE the DAO fund will recieve for better or worse, we are having the DAO betting against the market. Additionally as the goal of the DAO fund is to fund activities, spending the DAO fund will push BALN down even more in the future.

EDIT: This sort of backstopping to me feels like it will reduce the ‘brand’ of Balanced.

It would be a 100% different thing if the proposal was titled ‘Balanced is amazing and here is some analysis about how its worth AT LEAST this much so its in the best economic interest of the DAO fund to buy BALN at X price.’

Instead the proposal is 'We are afraid of the price falling and so want to backstop it’

Same actions, different sentiment

2 Likes

Nothing in the governance process prohibits this, so I am fine with it. If the community wants to have a metered discussion, it can. If it wants to ape into a vote, it can do that too.

:gorilla: :gorilla: :gorilla:

I like the idea of adding more BALN to the fund. BTP is going to be such an interesting time; with a lot of new users as well as new competitors. The more BALN we have, the more we have to add to the existing tokenomics to incentivize and attract capital coming (and staying) on Balanced.

I would like to have discussed the price point though…

This doesn’t increase the current value of the DAO fund though, merely the ratios.

Again I think the tone of the proposal is more important here. If the argument was BALN is such a great buy we should hold a larger proportion of it, I would feel it sounds a lot better. Especially with some work showing the rationale behind the exact price point.

“We are worried about its price falling” does not seem like valid thesis.
Personally that is a ‘nay’ for me

1 Like

I agree. I also value the discussions had about proposals.

Problem: BALN price will drop from self pressure leading up to ICE snapshot.

Solution: Use 25% or sICX in reserve fund to purchase BALN below .9 sICX to stabilize the price.

I don’t feel the solution will solve the problem, only stall market forces for a time.

Yeah, I voted no for a similar reason - price fixing only works so long and has unintended consequences. I realize there’s limits to how smart we could make something in such a short period of time but this feels like the wrong way to go about it even if there was an opportunity here to try to stabilize and/or profit long term.

Not to mention - why would we, who have a stake in the DAO not want to have as much ICE as possible at the time of the snapshot? Isn’t having an extra 25% ICE in the reserve fund a Good Thing? Or am I missing something?

I am against this proposal. I think I need a way to offset the amount of 1250BALN that will eventually be supplied daily than this. (A certain percentage of the proceeds is used to purchase BALN, or BALN is paid and burned every certain period to pay interest on a loan, etc.)

Thank you all for the feedback and it is valued by me. This is a growing process for everyone to include myself and I will address issues in the future in a much different manner. Thank you for your patience and taking the time to address this issue on such short notice.

2 Likes

I will spend a lot more time in the future polishing my proposal before bringing it to a vote

4 Likes

I fully agree and will take this into consideration on my future proposals.

2 Likes

Thanks for the feedback and I personally have given this feedback before, that I can agree with the premise and not the numbers. That was a complete miss on my end and for that I do apologize

3 Likes

Here is my general question: right now the dao fund has 679k baln and 742k sicx , it’s not good to have far more baln than icx? Baln total supply is 35x times less than icx total supply :+1:
Baln: 25m+1.8% inflation
Icx:909m+4% inflation with icon 2.0
So this allone give huge advantage to baln token to have much higher price than icx will ever reach!
Higher the price of token higher the dao fund in $$$
Especially now that the baln/sicx pair is completely destroyed I think maybe it’s good chance to buy the dip😁

I would have to look at the stats, but the numbers you are talking about sounds like the reserve fund and not the general fund. I believe the dao should have more baln than icx at this time, due to the fact that we are not listed anywhere and we are going to need to provide liquidity of baln for listing. I also feel that while baln is under 1:1 to icx, that it is a great opportunity to rebalance some reserve funds

Ops ,yeah you are right👍 I confused dao fund with reserve fund