Tetu official position is the same as Balancer position - we are building products for users, and you decide yourself how to use them. We try our best to protect users from risks as much as possible.
Changing rules so dramatically(in fact, cutting rewards to 1/6) is pretty risky, you can not predict how it will reflect on the whole ecosystem.
Aura protects its own interests and investors, and it is fine. But if it damages the whole Balancer ecosystem and affects the BAL price, it will damage them too.
Donāt forget that tetuBAL is a crosschain solution that allows Polygon users to participate in BAL ecosystem without huge gas spends.
If you cut rewards for them so dramatically, they can just be disappointed in the Balancer as a project.
25% of tetuBAL is in the hands of different users.
I think applying a cap would be detrimental to Balancer and the community. Without a cap, one would expect significant upside pressure on BAL price as users buy and stake BAL to achieve higher BAL yields which get more users involved in the community. With the higher BAL price, the BAL emissions would be much more valuable to all of the pools even if it is a lower nominal BAL amount. A drop to 5% sounds excessive to me.
Itās only fair this should be passed , because the original veBAL has emissions capped at 10% for the long term health of the balancer ecosystem and having veBAL wrappers get 40% of BAL total emissions defeats the whole purpose of the initial proposal of caping veBAL at 10%. I support this proposal and think perhaps even further restrictions cap restrictions would be beneficial.
disclaimer What I write further does not represent official Lido stance nor reWards committee. We might or might not chose to comment on the matter āofficiallyā
That being said with obvious logic of capping there is another perspective and I think it should be taken into account/revision.
Some of the core pools are revenue drivers for Balancer. If every pool is capped what would make Balancer different to competitor solutions? What would be the motivation for major protocols to participate in Balancer ecosystem?
Think one size fits all solution is a bit of a stretch and that this can be modeled into something better.
Will be interesting to see the voting result though.
Note that this proposal only convers stable pools composed of veBAL wrappers. Nothing changes for other stable pools like Matic/stMatic or Matic/MaticX for example.
This proposal makes a lot of sense to me. I think a 5% cap seems more than acceptable guys. Itās not working as it should right now, and I am sure a lot of people can agree. Bal emissions on wrappers should be adjusted.
I have always been an anti-whale person especially when it comes to DAO governance. In my own honest opinion I think 5% cap on all wrapper stableswap pool emission is just right and perfect. Simply allowing over 5% will kill the entire ecosystem before we get to do great things with it. I am in full support of thisā¦
I think any vote that seemingly would drastically hurt a non-hostile member of the community and drastically benefit another member of the community should be frowned upon.
I would suggest the community, if they want to reduce the weight of a significant actor, to do it gradually and in timeframes that allow this informed actor to adapt slowly.
Doing something drastic & basically overnight will be remembered by all large holders & protocols as a precedent to consider carefullyā¦
I have no other strong feelings outside this point for this particular topic. Wish yāall the best from Aaveās side
I agree ser. I think we need to take a step back and re-evaluate where we stand and proceed accordingly. I canāt blame anyone, but this has to be resolved at some pointā¦!
Creates this proposal to cap gauges: auraBAL and tetuBAL are supposed to be liquid wrappers for veBAL. A decent liquid wrapper should have enough exit liquidity for LPs to exit the pool when needed. 2 hours before this proposal went live there was a massive withdrawal from the tetuBAL pool as pointed out by @adamb0123 creating very little exit liquidity and disrupting the balance of the pool. Further capping the BAL emissions would discourage users from using these liquid wrappers and would result in $BAL not being permalocked anymore.
Sad to see that DeFi is rife with politics and not innovation especially during market conditions such as this.
Forgot to mention the 1000IQ timing of the snapshot vote to coincide with thanksgiving as the vote will silently pass. Gigachad move by the proposer
Weāve been observing closely Balancer Governance lately and Iām worried to see this proposal, which will inevitably affect Tetu and its development.
Tetu is a Polygon native project with a great team. They have a great community and wider support from the ecosystem. I hope that a satisfactory solution will be found here.
Forcing hands on others has never produced desearable outcomes for everyone but just resentment and casualties on both sides. Which is the worst thing to do in a bear market when we should be lifting each other and building cool shit together.
this is a great sentiment and the spirit of cooperation is very important. Gaining deeper liquidity on pools on Mainnet and Polygon is important as you clearly agree
but playing the system to stack Balancer tokens in the hands of a single actor is not a healthy way to promote growth. The cap on these wrappers is important to ensure that they are still profitable but do not create a black hole for emissions.
It is not about affecting Tetu or any of its development. They have a great team building. Itās about implementing fairness across all parties.
Each community consists of a diverse constituency with different values and goals. Sadly, coin voting is biased toward only one constituency: the wealthy. This often leads to prioritizing bad decisions (or rather advantageous to some actors) and subsequent emissions manipulation.
Hamzah, thanks for dropping by! Iām glad that Tetu is encouraging you to get more more involved in balancer governance.
Regarding your point in particular, I think this BIP is getting framed as AURA vs Tetu battle, but itās simply not. Iād encourage you to dive deeper into the situation here. Tetu is a good project, but is currently being controlled by a bad actor. This is a situation of Good Actors vs Bad Actors in a protocol, and how we should work to defend it. It would be the same on any chain.
Thanks for your comment, Iām glad to see you active again after being inactive for so long.
Once again, this is not an issue of an entrenched actor targeting a non-hostile member of the community. Through not fault of its own, Tetu has inadvertently aligned itself with a hostile, bad actor that is severely attacking the health of the Balancer ecosystem. This is a case of Good vs Bad, and the Balancer community needs to recognize this fact, and align itself to purge itself of this bad actor. If Tetu is a non-hostile member of the community as it claims, then it should come forth publicly, and publicly condemn the actions of the whale, removing itself from this discussion. By saying silent, it is complicit and has condoned the whaleās actions.
Update: We will be putting this proposal on pause and donāt expect to move it to snapshot this week, as there are conversations currently being had with the whale in mention.
in favor!
