Anchor Earn vs Borrow. growing chasm

Isn’t this the pos collateral block rewards?

Total Collateral: 4,837,495,463 UST
Conservative 5% from bAssets as reward from pos collateral block rewards: 241,874,773.15
Therefore; amount available to potentially use to pay back depositors: 241,874,773.15 UST

1 Like

oh sorry i missed that in your post!

All good!
But what are your thoughts on the numbers? In your opinion… is it a cause of concern?

It’s the reason I moved my assets off Anchor a little while back until a solution is voted. I find it as a too big a visible risk vector for keeping my value in there.

The current base yield is tracking at 12.5%. If the reserve continues to spiral down and rates drop to 12.5% that could lead to an exodus out of the platform and out of UST.

People can get 10% to 14% on mainstream defi platforms like Nexo and and there’s a load of alternative options out there to park a stable for 20%.


Right now the yield reserve is losing a little more than $1M/day and it’s accelerating. At this rate, without some intervention, it will be depleted in 50-60 days. Maybe a bit sooner.

With Solana having network throughput issues + better borrowing and deposit alternatives elsewhere, I’m having a tough time seeing Anchor attracting enough borrowing demand to offset this bleeding in time. Maybe it will slow down a bit but I kind of doubt it.

Unless there is another TFL back stop, ANC rewards increase significantly (done too quickly and it will likely tank the price and you end up no better off) or significant changes to the protocol with a proper yield curve, I fear that this marvellous work will all be for nothing.

Another option would be to enable mainstream borrowing sort of like Goldfinch as opposed to just borrowers that are levering up their speculative bets.

We’re well positioned to do this at Bidali with our regulatory approvals, fiat on/ramps and tech we’ve built for merchants and consumer, to date. But unfortunately, I’m not sure that 2 months is enough time to attract enough mainstream borrowing demand…

I had such high hopes for Terra and Anchor but it seems that this aggressive a push towards degen strats for distribution may be the downfall. More risk than I’m comfortable with now. This makes me very sad. :cry:

Unless the TFL and Anchor teams know something we all don’t, I think there needs to be a rapid push to a yield curve and deposit cap both globally and per address until a more sustainable solution can be thought through.


Good discussion going on here.

Just to add my POV:

  • Blacklisting = very bad - it’s a hack / ‘code smell’. If it’s needed to resort to that then there’s a fundamental problem with the protocol.

  • Capping deposits per address or globally is similar - it seems very hacky and can be circumvented in the case of per-address limits.

  • Perhaps the only reliable / clean way to manage this is to have a more flexible APR ¯_(ツ)_/¯ otherwise maybe we will have discussions like this every few months, for as long as the protocol is around.

  • I am in favour of a tiered APR based on lockup duration, eg. 30 days, 90 days etc… Seems like it would be more sustainable wrt to balancing out inflows from borrowers vs outflows to lenders, while keeping reasonable borrow / earn rates.


Agreed. I actually got burned when holding ANC tokens but it was my fault for not doing enough DD. (got impulsive).

The more I dig into how Anchor wants to deal with the ANC tokens the more disappointed I get. Seems like Anchor is being taken for a ride by degens. If you think people who deposit in Earn is being threatened (APR wise) then ANC token holders are worse off. This is strange because coming from TradFi you would think that the “owners” of the successful protocol would benefit but it turns out to be false. Why bother even contributing to the LP at this point lmao. In fact, ANC token holders of the recent govt vote are probably in the red. What a strange world where contributing to the protocol loses you money but I guess this is part and parcel of DeFi.


You forgot to add 2 wallets make up 50% of the governance vote so the voting value is effectively gone. It’s just useful for the additional yield. Not that that’s of any use.

1 Like

55k reseves… feels like a race. Thanks for everyone’s input. I believe it makes a difference

Where did you hear they were planning on rugging ANC-UST LPs that locked in Astroport?

What alternatives for stable 20%?

Convex, FRAX, OUSD, Yearn, Beefy. Plenty of options for 20% +, either providing LP or aggregated lending & borrowing, but all have none fixed yields.

1 Like

This is not financial advice but interesting cautious view on some of the above stated concerns. I have not looked at the researched links to this video as of yet.

1 Like

Daniele Sesta was actually pondering this before the Degenbox went into overdrive. It seems he was trying to get public support for using MIM to prop up the UST peg while using peg insurance.

He knew the risks, but went in full steam regardless.


Yes, because all of his populist rhetoric is complete bullshit. He’s a degen robber baron.


the development beats logic…

They announced an end to ANC-UST LP incentives not even 24 hours after the Astroport liquidity lockup.

We still have no idea what our LP fees are on Astroport.

1 Like

The end of LP rewards has always been stated and outlined in the gov docs since launch.

I am hoping they update this soon because you’re not alone in wanting to see this.


This isn’t a solution actually, not at least from my perspective. People will still be able to leverage those tokens in numerous ways… by lending or borrowing against them they could be leveraged in a very similar way to what abracadabra does…