Bringing this gauge or any gauge back with $cream in it is a terrible idea and is super unhealthy for the entire ecosystem. I think we need to move past this and work towards a brighter and healthier future for balancer. One that isn’t consistently manipulated by one small group of whales.
4 Likes
Will our heroes print enough veBAL to repel the villainous attackers and maintain the status quo? will it be enough?
The timing is right, pressure is up and future uncertain.
We are watching.
Should probably get that removed then. it’s a bit misleading for those who will use the documents as an understanding or for research.
We use gov documents quite often for our research at StableNode and I assume others do too.
3 Likes
Some bird approached me this morning. I’m just relaying the message to make it all transparent:
After the initial gas deposit:
- One of the addresses (0x66c9e1e4fe518cebfe59c9de16e1c780ef5bacd3) got 210k Balancer (on 7/28) from “Balancer: Shareholder 28”
- The four other addresses each got a 100k Balancer deposit routed through “dispserse.app” in the same transaction.
Each of these addresses was subsequently funded by another Balancer Shareholder:
- 201k Balancer from “Balancer: Shareholder 26”: 0xc9Cea7A3984CefD7a8D2A0405999CB62e8d206DC
- 217K Balancer from “Balancer: Shareholder 30”: 0xd519D5704B41511951C8CF9f65Fee9AB9beF2611
- 214k Balancer from “Balancer: Shareholder 22”: 0x6AeE9dc09702DFFaB334f3f8e6f3F97c0e7261F4
- 217k Balancer from “Balancer: Shareholder 35”: 0x9B71dBCcD9fFB858899Ef3244B09a5354B16048E
If you want to have a look at their wallets and see what they hold:
One of the Filosophers’ favorite sayings, “The most powerful form of government is one which creates the illusion of freedom.”
Or, in this case, decentralization
Although I don’t want to see the CREAM gauge related discussion anymore too, I want to point out this.
(just made this account to write this but I’ve followed the discussions in this fourm for a long time)
According to the git commit history, there’s nothing but the team’s records. It seems it’s not fair to say it's written by some random person.
Anyway, I agree that the CREAM gauge was unhealthy for the Balancer ecosystem. So I suggest that we (community/team/voters or whoever relevant) admit that we made an exception for the re-vote, and we can move on with the clear guideline.
Maybe this would be better to be discussed in a separate thread, so it’ll be good if @Bobbay_StableLab writes a new post.
3 Likes
I take responsibility for this mistake and apologize @Bobbay_StableLab.
Agreed and will make sure this gets corrected asap. I still think that we should discuss revote policies, but for now they should be fully open to anyone requesting them, of course unless it becomes spam (subjective but should be something defined in the policy).
7 Likes
While I appreciate @Fernando being willing to take responsibility for an oversight, as @vault_research pointed out, I wrote those docs over a year ago since there had been an informal agreement on that timeline back then.
I’m happy to remove any mention of the 30 day waiting period, but I just want to highlight that I think it’s quite clear that this is an informal guideline and not a formalized thing. @Bobbay_StableLab when you read the docs, you’ll see they say:
- Execute result or try again (no minimal cool-off period defined, guideline is 30 days)
… the guideline for a re-vote is to wait at least 30 days.
Overall though, I’m staying out of this argument because I think gauge drama is far and away the least interesting aspect of the Balancer ecosystem. Really wish there was as much excitement over development as there apparently is over liquidity mining
(Edit: re-vote references have been removed. See github diff here)
11 Likes
This is everything!!!
@Andrea81 @TheOne these frameworks suck! No one really wants to put them in place. I don’t think the Cream gauge would have ever really become an issue if it hadn’t ever gotten more than 2-5% of veBAL (which I do think is reasonable for that token). In the end this is all some battle over the behaviour of one resource rich entity that is concerning to basically everyone else in the ecosystem.
The funniest thing is, they wouldn’t be required at all if voting behaviours could just be adapted to be a little more supportive of the ecosystem and a little less focused on concentrating “blackhole” style farming with high pool capture. Both are ok, but too much black-holing stunts the growth of an ecosystem, or can even implode it.
Balancer team. Andrea seems to have ear of said whale and is willing to talk. I get the sense relationships may be strained, but maybe it makes more sense to try to find an agreement instead of continuing this war over control of majority based voting that seems like it may never end?
Whoever wins this, another vote will be staged once the looser thinks they have a good shot at winning based on recent accumulation.
3 Likes
hi @Tritium ,
I have always been in favor of dialogues and have sought them persistently.
However, it seems to me that there is little interest now and that we can throw everyone to the stake except Aura, some pool that we like because generate a certain yield and little else.
It is sad to see Balancer navigate in the current state. With a small group perched on the defensive afraid of losing control.
I see 140+ comments on the V1 framework and users willing to give feedback but none actually managed to influence the final proposal. Difficult to be positively impressed by all this.
2 Likes
Wait a second, AFAIK this isn’t true, please point out where this offer has been extended in the past, maybe I’m not in the know here. As a community member I would like to know what the long term goals of @theone is because it has never been made clear. I have alluded to this a few times in past posts.
I’m no decision maker by any means, but happy to chat about whatever because still isn’t clear to me how the actions of @theone is benefiting the broader community, but maybe i’m missing something. Happy to have a discussion whenever, so if your offer here is genuine we can sync up.
edit: forgot to add the specific part I was referencing
6 Likes
There is most definitely a positive path forward here where everyone can benefit, but blackhole farming bal to oblivion using dead tokens just doesn’t make sense. It would be great if comms could be opened up between the balancer team and whoever is behind the entity. So much more could be accomplished if they worked to help the ecosystem remain healthy.
The hard reality is that Cream is dead… there is no point in continuing here or ever voting for this gauge. Let’s open up comms and become frens please. Find a new way forward.
6 Likes
fair point, it is a guideline. I’m just going by how people interpret it if it is in the official documents but thanks for the clarification!
2 Likes
I have pointed out the problem within the discussion on the forum proposal to kill the CREAM/WETH pool.
In my opinion, in the absence of a clear framework as to the conditions for eliminating a gauge, it was wrong to promote a vote like the one that has passed. It would have been better to work around a sustainable governance framework and to set precise limitations for BAL emissions concerning non-core pools.
From the posts that I read, it seems clear that the issue at stake is not only the CREAM/WETH pool, even if some people try to concentrate on the specific point. In my opinion Balancer faces a management and governance problem, whereby it appears clear that the main veBAL holders, @TheOne and Badger cannot stand anymore the fact that 4-5 people decide alone what is best for the phantomatic Balancer DAO, which currently is formed by the 4-5 mentioned people + a centralized entity called Orb.
I am fully in support of this proposal. I think that it should pass as a form of admission that governance rules and tokenomics frameworks are not a joke and that reliable rules should be set ex ante. This should induce all the interested parties to work to a common framework concerning the Balancer governance and tokenomics in order to avoid that situations like the one that we are facing happen again in the future. In my opinion for the growth of Balancer, as a decentralized ecosystem, this proposal should defenitely pass.
Given that we are talking about a few big players, for the establishment of the new framework I would frankly encourage a mediation procedure through CURIA. A new framework imposed by the 4-5 people that currently form the DAO would bring additional harm to the Balancer governance. It is important to learn from mistakes.
1 Like
I also support healthy dialogues and I hope we continue to see productive discourse in the Balancer ecosystem. I am against this proposal as the entire community unanimously voted to kill this gauge, aside from a single entity which voted against. I’m not sure voters could have sent any clearer message.
If this entity is able to take control of Balancer governance that could bring irreparable harm to the ecosystem. Their actions have been nothing but value extractive thus far, though I still hold out hope that Balancer and the whale can find a mutually symbiotic relationship. I’ll never stop working towards a future that benefits all ecosystem participants. Unfortunately this proposal is not the way to do that and only gets us further from a resolution that benefits everyone.
3 Likes
I would say this is a gross mischaracterization of Orb. Orb is one of multiple service providers to the DAO, and it has no position on this issue.
My own personal opinion, as stated above, is that gauge drama is an enormous distraction from continuing to build a great protocol. Take a step back and look at what you’re all arguing over. Governance could be working on useful efforts, but instead everyone has knives at each other’s throats over liquidity mining. Is this really what you all got involved in DeFi for?
3 Likes
If you compare the monetary commitment of the DAO to Orb, the rest (which by the way are a few actors) is dust tbh
1 Like
As I tried to explain, in governance matters, also procedures and methods count. I am not interested in the merits. What has been done with the killing vote was too harsh and not sustained by a legitimate basis. Giving power to tokenholders is not enough to create a healthy governance system. In fact, we are discussing about a re-vote of the same issue that has already been voted. In reality, it is the third time that we are voting for the same matter, which is frankly not normal. The governance system presented gaps from the beginning, but instead o promoting a solution in the first place, you have proposed to kill the gauge, which was wrong. What is happening now is just the consequence of a mistake.
1 Like
The DAO chose to pay Orb for services.
If you choose to spend your money on chocolate, does that mean that the chocolate store controls you?
1 Like
Actually it was sustained by the only legitimate basis there is - veBAL voters. I don’t know how you can imply otherwise honestly.
1 Like