I think this is a wonderful idea and will pull some volume over from Uniswap. However, I agree with the above comment about making it applicable to LPs as well. I literally just paid right under $200 to approve and provide liquidity to a pool after my initial tx stalled, I attempted to speed it up, then attempted to cancel it, then reinstated it.
Furthermore, would the fee for “Approving” the tokens on the platform be refunded also, or ONLY the swap gas. I know it’s only $10, but to pay $10 just to approve the token before swapping is aggravating also lol.
This applies only to swaps right now, not approvals. The logic is that Balancer swaps are particularly expensive, but approvals are identical in all protocols, so you aren’t paying any extra to use Balancer in this case.
Wanted to buy a Razor Network LBP today and decided against it. Because it is not one of the pairs listed above…Balancer v2 needs to come quick and fast. somewhere the development needs to quicken up faster…Also the claim page is a gas guzzler…some design thinking to give rewards in L2 will save amazing amount of fees…
OK, here’s my use case: I swapped 1 ETH for BAL last week. Although high in gas fees, I thought I’d make use of this reimbursement and get those costs back. Now I am able to claim these, but that transaction has gas fees again—even higher than the reimbursement itself.
Can anyone help me understand this? Am I wrong in assuming more and more of these claims and harvests are just going to get locked into De-Fi products due to gas fees being too high? How is Balancer (or any other DEX for that matter) currently a useable product? Or is 1 ETH considered peanuts and is the De-Fi eco-system only interesting starting at transactions of >10 ETH?
I purchased 10,000k bal last week with the hopes of this refund only to be disappointed in being charged $495 in gas to set up my proxy…yes, I refused and would like to know who will bring in new liquidity when they are charge $500?..
Gas really sucks right now. Nobody planned for this to happen; this isn’t the ideal state of things. The whole network was much more usable a few months ago; gas prices were literally 90% cheaper. There are several very smart teams focused on solving this problem with their Layer 2 tech. All we can do is continue to focus on our core product and give them time to finish their work. Everyone is understandably frustrated right now, but the frustration is misdirected; there’s nothing that any DeFi protocol can do about gas costs except wait for L2 to be ready.
The problem is ethereum. Everyone was building dex and other projects using their blockchain language only to be screwed now due to gas fees. Eth is old blockchain and the smart money is on 3.0 blockchains like ada.
If you make a trade during a week (00:00 UTC Monday - 23:59 UTC Sunday), then you can claim BAL on claim.balancer.finance beginning on the following Wednesday. As an example, if I made a trade on Monday, February 8, I would be able to claim on Wednesday, February 17.
While those technologies can be very useful for certain niches, they are side chains, not true Layer 2 solutions. Layer 2 inherits its security from Ethereum, whereas side chains security is completely independent; side chains typically rely on a somewhat more centralized DPoS or PoA consensus mechanism for speed. Therefore they work really well for some use cases where speed is paramount and decentralization is somewhat less important, like games or small payments. But it would be a very bad idea to migrate over a billion dollars’ worth of TVL onto a side chain.
It’s based on the gas fee paid to Ethereum miners, which is different from the swap fee paid to liquidity providers. Gas is the mechanism on Ethereum for paying to include a transaction in a block and is somewhat fixed - it depends only on the amount of computation performed in a transaction, and its price depends only on network demand; gas costs do not scale with trade size. So yes, a $100 trade will cost the same amount of gas as a $1000 trade and will receive the same reimbursement.
As adoption increases wouldn’t the decentralization of validators also increase with it? Do you know if these sidechains have roadmaps to become L2? I believe matic has a roadmap to include roll ups, this came out in their recent rebranding.
Instead of moving the TVL what about just the claiming balancer portion.
Ah, my mistake. I previously didn’t appreciate the full context of your comment and thought you meant migrating the whole protocol (billions of dollars) to a relatively untested chain. Moving just the claim portion would make a lot more sense and be a lot more feasible. That’s exactly the kind of niche for which side chains make sense, smaller funds at risk. But the whole liquidity mining system is going to change for V2 in just a couple months, so it doesn’t make much sense to spend time refining the current system on V1. V2 Liquidity Mining Brainstorming
The V2 system is likely going to be a whole lot different overall and live entirely on chain via staking, so no, it probably won’t use L2. But it would be a lot more gas-efficient (and autonomous) than what we have on V1.