Veballer.eth - Delegate Thread

Dear community

As a passionate contributor to the Balancer DAO I couldn’t resist but create (the first) thread on becoming a voting delegate.

Let me introduce myself with a snappy delgate introduction card based on @solarcurve post :

Name: Xeonus

Address or ENS: veballer.eth

Discord username/TG username: Xeonus#4620

I have read and understood the Delegate process: Affirmative

I understand that becoming a delegate is a significant commitment: Yes - it is not only a significant commitment but also - to me personally - an important one to keep the integrity of Balancers future

My reasons for wanting to be a delegate: I have been a core contributor to the DAO since August 2021. I wrote important proposals such as the Protocol Fee Activation and Swap Fee Control proposals. As I am deeply embedded in the DAO as a signer of the Treasury subDAO as well as leading the community dev subDAO, I feel obliged to take over responsibility for important voting initiatives.

My view on Fernando’s vision for Balancer: His vision is key to understand why Balancer needs to become a truly decentralized protocol. Additionally, our strength will lie in providing an excellent PaaS (platform as a service) for other protocols to build on top of. Balancer has superior tech and it is time for it to shine in DeFi.

My web3 interests: Anything from how DeXs work to how one can leverage on-chain data to better understand the space

Languages I speak/write: German, French, English

My skills and areas of expertise: PhD in Neuroscience, IT Consultant and Software Engineer for 4 years. I am the creator of and . I have strong analytical and technical skills that I am currently expanding in the web3 space.

Other web3 projects I’m involved in: Beethoven-X, PrimeDAO


Introduce ProtocolFeesWithdrawer

I voted yes. Important security measure that had to be put in place. Balancer labs acted quickly and swiftly!

Enable CREAM/WETH 80/20 Gauge [Ethereum]

I voted yes. Supporting the addition of new gauges is currently important to grow our veBAL ecosystem.

Allowlist Pickle Finance in veBAL Voting Escrow

I voted yes. As with the other gauge additions, we are currently in a growth phase and onboarding new gauges is crucial for the success of our platform.

Form the Emergency subDAO

I voted yes. Important security measure to disable malicious gauges / bad actors.

Allocate 31,250 BAL for Optimism Incentives

I voted yes. I am very excited for this joint-venture! Thanks to @solarcurve for pushing this initiative!

Amend the Agreement with 1inch

I voted yes as it is an essential amendment to the implementation agreement.

1 Like

Enable PAL/WETH 80/20 Gauge [Ethereum]

I voted yes - currently continuing the whitelisting mode

Whitelist Stake DAO to lock BAL

I voted yes. Cannot wait for all those convex-like products to come out! Bullish for BAL!

1 Like

TribeDAO: boost delegation

I voted yes. Tribe is an important DAO2DAO partner.

Introduce ChildChainGaugeTokenAdder

I voted yes. Important to get those gauges going on OP!

Send back 3CRV stuck to Stake Dao Multisig Address

I voted yes. DAO2DAO coordination at its finest!

Allocate BAL to a Ribbon Finance Vault

I voted no. This was the most difficult vote for me in a while. In the forum discussions I signaled that I would be slightly in favor. However, although the current market situation is not favorable, I could not with a good conscious say yes to the potential risk in terms losses for the DAO if this strategy is put in place. I believe that there is still major upside for L1 blue chip tokens, especially with the ETH merge coming up. If we invest in Ribbon, we signal that we are not bullish / confident in our own token. I would rather explore alternative strategies or at least better understand this one.
Fact is: we need USDC sooner than later to pay service providers under the new framework. But all in all I would as it is now rather market sell BAL than put it into Ribbon Finance.


Hey @Xeonus - you mention you would like to better understand this proposal. Anything specific I can help answer? In the meantime here are some additional thoughts:

If we invest in Ribbon, we signal that we are not bullish / confident in our own token.

I don’t see it this way at all. It depends on what timeframe you are operating under. Balancer should be bullish on BAL in the long run, but I would argue there is only so much a team can do for a token on a shorter time frame. Much depends on the broader market. The best community members are most likely the ones who understand this themselves. And yes, the market can change direction - this segues to my next point:

We have no minimum requirement for how long you have to keep funds in our vault. Keep them there for as little or as long as you want. The treasury can trial it for a month and leave the next.

Also, as it stands now the treasury is allocating only 12% of its BAL to this. There is flexibility up or down as well.

But all in all I would as it is now rather market sell BAL than put it into Ribbon Finance.

Scenario A: market sell BAL. If you market sell BAL, you get cash immediately. The treasury owns less BAL, has cash upfront.

If BAL goes down: you are earning no yield. Sure you can buy back BAL cheaper but the point is not to do buy backs - its to use the cash to pay service providers.
If BAL goes up: you gave up some upside by selling BAL

Scenario B: sell BAL covered call. If you sell BAL covered calls, you still get cash immediately because the premium is paid upfront - but it may be less cash than flat out selling BAL. The treasury owns same amount of BAL, has cash upfront.

If BAL goes down: you are earning yield on premiums
If BAL goes up: you gave up all the upside past the strike price. But each BAL is worth much more, and compared to market selling in scenario A you still get all the upside between that price and the strike.

Both strategy has its pros and cons, but I would argue scenario B is more aligned with being bullish.

1 Like

Thanks for your reply - maybe not the best spot to discuss it as this is the Delegate notebook on what has been voted.
What I would suggest for such a proposal to be more successful:

  • Show simulations for different market outcomes in the proposal
  • Let voters choose options on how much BAL should be invested, or none at all. Like that the proposal might actually pass with a lower amount of allocated BAL (can be done in the forum post or the actual vote), for example:
    Option A: 50k BAL
    Option B: 100k BAL
    Option C: 250k BAL
    Option D: 500k BAL
    Option E: No, this is not the way. Do not invest any BAL in this strategy
  • As it stands, I don’t want to dedicate more than 10% of our BAL reserves to such a strategy, independent of the outcome

I abstained because of my position as a board member of the Balancer foundation

I voted yes as Gnosis is an important partner.

I voted yes - improves user experience (otherwise BAL gets stuck 7 days to withdraw from OP) and we do something useful with our Treasury BAL, generating fees!

I voted yes. Very important to maintain a healthy veBAL ecosystem and protect us from bad actors.

I voted yes. Helping out our Tribe frens to cover for their mistake


I voted yes. Just a formality to return the funds after the contract upgrade


I voted yes on all of them. Basically an governance / infrastructure optimization voting round.

I abstained as I am applying as a director of the foundation board.

I voted yes - I am becoming more critical though as we reach gauge saturation. New rules will be implemented soon to make our gauge list more curated

I voted yes - important we have dedicated members for fast executions

I voted yes - I want all hard working contributors to be paid for their work despite the tough market conditions. The SP proposals are also on the way, so this is the last payment round in the old subDAO framework.

I abstained as I applied in that SP proposal.

Edit: I locked some Aura on my secondary account xeonus.eth which used the same voting strategy. I will delegate to veballer.eth in the next gauge round.


[BIP-19] Incentivize Core Pools & L2 Usage

I voted yes. This is an important piece of the veBAL puzzle and an ingenious brain child of @solarcurve . Essential for a sustainable protocol!

[BIP-20] Funding Proposal for Orb Collective

I abstained because I am a board member of the Balancer Foundation

[BIP-21] Funding Proposal for Ecosystem Ops and Development Squad

I abstained because I am a board member of the Balancer Foundation

[BIP-22] Fund Balancer Grants for Q3

I abstained because I am a board member of the Balancer Foundation

[BIP-23a] AURA/ETH/graviAURA Gauge [Ethereum]

I voted no. Simply because the core pool proposal is a better solution for us.

[BIP-23b] auraBAL/ETH/graviAURA Gauge [Ethereum]

I voted no. See reasoning above.

[BIP-24] Allocate BAL to a Ribbon Finance Vault

I voted yes. The revised proposal is allocating a more healthy portion of our BAL treasury. It is a fact that we need stable coins to pay for all the SP proposals that will likely pass. We are in a bear market and need to act accordingly. If BAL price appreciates, we didn’t “invest” too much BAL into this strategy to make us hurt, but still enough to protect us from more downside.

[BIP-25] Enable AURA/ETH 50/50 Gauge

I voted yes. Aura is an incredible layer built on top of Balancer creating value for its users and the protocol!

[BIP-7] Enable auraBAL/[8020 BAL/WETH bpt] Gauge [second vote]

I voted yes. Same reason as above

Edit: Links


[BIP-8] Enable TetuBAL/20WETH-80BAL Gauge [second vote]

I voted yes. Tetu builds solid products and strengthens Polygon liquidity.

[BIP-26] Enable MAGIC/USDC Gauge [Arbitrum]

I voted yes as this is a useful Arbitrum gauge.

[BIP-27] Enable DIGG/wBTC/graviAURA 40/40/20 Gauge [Ethereum]

I voted no as I don’t dig DIGG - I don’t see value added to the protocol and a possible fee generation flywheel.

1 Like

[BIP-28] Kill CREAM/WETH Gauge [Ethereum]

I voted yes

We had extensive discussions on this topic. For me the most striking factor to vote to “disable” this gauge is because CREAM represents a semi-dead governance token with inherent flaws as pointed out by other community members. Given the circumstances, we shall disable this gauge to protect the integrity of Balancer and to also protect our users from investing in a “shady” token.

Of course, I am taking full responsibility to not have seen this when I also voted yes to enable the CREAM gauge. I didn’t pay enough attention. I will be very strict and careful with any future gauges applying to be enabled in the future.

And to the critics that say we cannot just disable a gauge: there is a reason why we can enable and disable gauges. We need to act in the best interest of the protocol. In my opinion, we did everything by the book by letting the community discuss this issue and putting this up for a vote. It is now in the hands of veBAL holders to decide if they want to keep it or not. That’s the beauty and power of decentralized governance!


[BIP-29] Introduce GaugeAdder v2

I voted yes. Important infrastructure improvement for our gauges

[BIP-30] Purge Unused Gauges

I voted yes. This vote is as much about house-keeping as well as UX improvements for our valued veBAL holders.

[BIP-31] Authorize the Batch Relayer v3

I voted yes. This change finally patches the disclosed vulnerability. Also very bullish on new bb-a-USD deployment.


I abstained. As for any other SP proposal, I had to abstain because I am a director of the Balancer Foundation.

[BIP-33] Orb Marketing Budget Proposal for the Remainder of Q3

I abstained. As for any other SP proposal, I had to abstain because I am a director of the Balancer Foundation.

1 Like

[BIP-30] Purge Unused Gauges [second vote]

I voted yes - Same reasoning as the last voting round.

[BIP-34] Enable the 50/50 RBW/wETH Gauge on Polygon

I voted yes - RBW consistently showed high trading volume and healthy community interest on Polygon. Good fee driver for Balancer on Polygon.

[BIP-35] Whitelist the Laguna Games’ Gnosis Safe for Balancer’s Voting Escrow

I voted yes - The more entities taking part in veBAL & Balancer governance, the better.

[BIP-36] Enable TEMPLE/DAI 80/20 Gague (Ethereum)

I voted yes - Was on the fence on this one. I am very cautious now if and how gauges should be enabled since the CREAM incident. In particular 80/20 pools need to have a very clear reasoning to get a gauge designation. The ongoing discussions in the forum were OK to vote yes to enable this gauge.


[BIP-37] Allocate BAL Liquidity to Polygon & Arbitrum Multichain Bridge

I voted yes A way for the DAO to earn fees on official bridges and for users to easily bridge their tokens. Win win.

[BIP-38] Request for BAL Allocation to Orb Collective

VI voted yes Just a formality of moving the existing vesting token allocations to Orb.

[BIP-39] Repay Aura Treasury for Unclaimable Rewards

I voted yes I already expressed my thoughts in the forum discussion. Glad that the associated bug was found and fixed. I see it as a bug bounty for the Aura team :slight_smile:

1 Like

BIP-40 to BIP-42
Abstained. Will continue to vote in the next round.

1 Like