On behalf of the Balancer community, I’d like to propose the following modifications to the token whitelist used for BAL governance distribution. As a reminder, these whitelist proposals are largely noncontentious, so they are not subject to community vote. Instead, the community has 24 hours to review the proposal and voice concern; otherwise, it automatically passes. For reference, please see the previous proposals which detail the motivation for creation of the whitelist and define the list of tokens used to date:
I would like to propose adding the following new tokens to the whitelist:
ADD CRV 0xD533a949740bb3306d119CC777fa900bA034cd52
ADD DAM 0xF80D589b3Dbe130c270a69F1a69D050f268786Df
ADD DIA 0x84cA8bc7997272c7CfB4D0Cd3D55cd942B3c9419
ADD PROPS 0x6fe56C0bcdD471359019FcBC48863d6c3e9d4F41
ADD TEND 0x1453Dbb8A29551ADe11D89825CA812e05317EAEB
ADD XOR 0x40FD72257597aA14C7231A7B1aaa29Fce868F677
The proposed changes would go into effect at 00:00 UTC on Monday, August 17.
NOTE: This week marks the final week of whitelisting under the old criteria. All proposed tokens will be added to the list at the currently active cap tier, called
cap3 and equaling $10M USD. The community may exercise subjective skepticism between now and 00:00 UTC Monday to prevent the addition of any of the tokens above. Starting next week, the criteria will shift to purely technical, and the default cap will switch to
cap1, $1M USD. Any tokens denied this round will likely be added during the next round, but there is a difference in starting cap. Please see the latest whitelist proposal which just passed today.
I support adding:
ADD CRV 0xD533a949740bb3306d119CC777fa900bA034cd52 great product
ADD DIA 0x84cA8bc7997272c7CfB4D0Cd3D55cd942B3c9419 sounds legit on the first glance
ADD PROPS 0x6fe56C0bcdD471359019FcBC48863d6c3e9d4F41 legit enough to list it, I personally don’t think they need a coin
ADD XOR 0x40FD72257597aA14C7231A7B1aaa29Fce868F677 looks legit enough
I voice my concerns about:
ADD DAM 0xF80D589b3Dbe130c270a69F1a69D050f268786Df ponzi scheme: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoMoonShots/comments/hp1rut/if_you_arent_buying_and_staking_dam_tokens/: . Even with FLUX token (minted after staking dam) at $13 and headed lower possibly in the short term, the current annual ROI is something like 40-50x. You can make back your principle investment in a week!
ADD TEND 0x1453Dbb8A29551ADe11D89825CA812e05317EAEB - worthless money game. Fits every single definition of a ponzi scheme. The earlier you get in, the more of useless tokens you get. A game of chicken in a few ways
Hi Balancer community,
For your concerns about Datamine( DAM )
The article you shared was written 1 month ago, and FLUX total supply was 2 or 5. There was just 2 FLUX all over the world. and the FLUX price was pretty high by the way. Nowadays FLUX price dropped and balanced, supply is increasing slowly and there is ~64% burn rate for FLUX which is balancing FLUX supply and which means people buy and burn FLUX, so still spends money for future income. If they maximize their FLUX generating power, if FLUX price goes $20+ and DAM stays $0.20, then you are right with your concerns. But with current prices and correlation between DAM and FLUX, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get 20X-30X ROI in a year. I just calculated via dashboard, even if you maximize your time multiplier, maximum ROI is X5 despite the DAM&FLUX is 2 months old. And you know, ROI is high when the projects are brand new, we can expect the ROI can reduce a bit more by time. So we can’t label a project risky with a medium article which was written on day 2 of the project. And if you visit the Datamine discord community, you will see developer, Dabs, Panconpalta, mesgo, bank, Maul, Led… are active and other community members are friendly/responsive almost all the time. Feel free to ask about your concerns whenever you want.
Given the feedback from @5325235235235, $DAM and $TEND are omitted from round 8. They will most likely be added in round 9 - which precludes community feedback in favor of objective criteria - with the new $1M cap on adjusted liquidity, per the recent process proposal.
I believe an old or incorrect address may be listed for DOS.
In this post BAL Whitelist - Round 3
it appears this address was whitelisted for DOS: 0x70861e862E1Ac0C96f853C8231826e469eAd37B1
I am not sure what this contract is… is calls itself DOS?
But, Coingecko links to this token address, which seems more legit
This BAL pool has $100k of liquidty inc tokens from the second address
This DOS/USDC pool is not whitelisted, yet DOS apparently is.
Can someone please check this out?
(Maybe I am mis-understanding how token addresses work!)