I think it’d be wise to get some feedback from sdBAL and the rest of the Balancer community before we send this to a vote. AuraBAL enjoyed 10% emissions in the past - rushing this proposal or making it seem like a Tetu vs. Aura discussion would only validate concerns around Aura playing the regulatory monopoly game.
3 Likes
It is disheartening participating in a conversation which appears to have the sole purpose of driving a certain narrative of clearly disfavoring Tetu and hurting a significant portion of Balancer stakeholders.
Tetu does not agree in having a cap for any version of veBAL liquid wrappers and looks forward to having a more mature conversation involving all parties instead of using mere puns, frankly childish, in order to present a rushed proposal that could not include options that reflect everyone’s wishes.
1 Like
Of course, brother. This is an open forum–we welcome all constructive discussions.
6 Likes
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.
Let’s compete in technology, not politics.
3 Likes
Don’t 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.
2 Likes
Tetu has a vibrant community of humble builders–we have nothing but respect for your team. On the present issue, however, we’ll just need to agree to disagree. Current vote weights simply aren’t healthy for the Balancer ecosystem.
4 Likes
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.
5 Likes
It’s 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.
2 Likes
Interesting proposal.
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 “officially”
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
That makes much more sense, thank you. Let’s blame it on my non native English 
Based on comments here maybe 5% is a bit too low and too sudden to make hard cut.
Gradual decrease would make more sense and allow time for research of other models.
1 Like
Very interesting topic ladies & gents.
This proposal makes a lot of sense to me. I think a 5% cap seems more than acceptable guys. It’s not working as it should right now, and I am sure a lot of people can agree. Bal emissions on wrappers should be adjusted.
in favor!
3 Likes
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 this…
3 Likes
Hello to the Balancer community,
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 carefully…
I have no other strong feelings outside this point for this particular topic. Wish y’all the best from Aave’s side 
9 Likes
I agree ser. I think we need to take a step back and re-evaluate where we stand and proceed accordingly. I can’t blame anyone, but this has to be resolved at some point…!
5 Likes
Ever since the launch of veBAL, the Balancer forum has had more drama than keeping up with the Kardashians and the real housewives of Beverly Hills 
- First the Balancer team FOMOs during veTOKENOMICS season and forks the veCRV contracts with no idea of how it works
- Due to poor execution multiple players like humpy are able to game the system and Balancer makes several governance proposals to put an end to it.
- Starts publicly shilling Aura exactly 1 week after the sudden surge in tetuBAL. and Aura creates a proposal to use their veBAL power to vote.
- 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 
Bearish 
6 Likes
Hi this is Hamzah from Polygon,
We’ve been observing closely Balancer Governance lately and I’m 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.
7 Likes
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.
7 Likes
It is not about affecting Tetu or any of its development. They have a great team building. It’s 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.
This proposal simply suggests ending that.
5 Likes