Disable MIM Degenbox (Poll/14)

It appears someone has created a poll already that has 181k ANC backing behind it.

*** Update *** 2.7 Million ANC has voted ‘Yes’ to the removal of the Degenbox.

While I don’t agree with all points I think we can all agree that enough is enough. The TFL/Abracadabra partnership has been a complete disaster.

How do we go about achieving this outcome as seamlessly and swift as possible? Some action steps:

  1. Temporarily disable ETHAnchor from receiving new deposit inflow.
  2. Temporarily reduce ETHAnchor APY to 0%.

These actions will prevent UST from being rotated back in and ensure the entire degenbox is unwound.
We are currently carrying approximately $730M of degenbox UST in Anchor Earn.

My suggestion is we act quickly and ask questions later. This is something that needs dissolving for the health and reputation of the protocol and the wider ecosystem.

EthAnchor (deposits) offers zero value to the protocol. It sucks APY out and sends it cross chain while offering nothing back on the borrowing side to balance it out.

6 monthly Anchor stats as a reference

https://grafana.luigi311.com/d/7j96rRI7z/anchor?orgId=2&from=now-6M&to=now

8 Likes

This is permissionless lending, the moment we ban any single agent from borrowing we become CEFI. I think this is against what we as a community stand for.

4 Likes

This is nothing to do with permissionless. This is disabling an aspect of the protocol that has been abused and has led to the demise of the platform.

Enough of this nonsense.

3 Likes

I dont think disabling ETHAnchor is the solution either…

1 Like

This poll is absurd and just a consequence of recent FUD that doesn’t have anything to do with anchor.

The poller need to get it’s shit together

4 Likes

If this poll passes there is not clear enough way to implement it. blocking ETHanchor blocks more than just MIM.

3 Likes

I don’t agree with the sentiments, but the poll has momentum behind it (200k+ votes) and the outcome is desirable for the protocol.

3 Likes

What else requires ETHAnchor?

Orion Money for starters - Orion Money

1 Like

Unfortunately there are going to be some sacrifices to be made. Orion Money may be one of them.

This situation cannot be be allowed to happen again.

If people want to uphold the permissionless aspect of Anchor then this feature is either on or off.

3 Likes

Finally signed up after weeks of reading only.

While in first reaction I favored the idea of MIM sidelined by just disabling ETHanchor. On the other hand though it was stated a lot of times, that Anchor needs more on the borrow side. So what will happen when bSol and bAtom will be implemented and their “MIM´s” show up… Are we just gonna disable bSol and bAtom then…?

Frankly, as Anchor and overall DeFi gains momentum, I don´t see any other way than declining APY on the earn side.

3 Likes

This has been discussed numerous times and there have been many answers about it.

1 Like

This needs to happen.

2 Likes

Even if you could stop EthAnchor…someone will just deploy it again… its open source…just go here GitHub - Anchor-Protocol/eth-anchor-contracts: Ethereum-side wrapper contracts for Anchor download the code…deploy the contracts.

This is not a Bank where anyone can define who is allowed to use it or not. Its a blockchain smart contract that everyone can use and even when you create a blacklist the counter party will create another contract that’s not on the blacklist. The good Blockchains are open and permissionless by design not by choice.

Btw. if you look at abracadabra.money you would have noticed that the degenbox already only contains 50% UST it had before. The political issues within the “Frognation” Protocols seem to fix this issue at least for a few days or weeks where the trust is gone.

6 Likes

Aren’t abracadabra used addresses known?

Alternatively, limit size coming from or going to eth, as abracadabra is surely the one doing the largest transactions. Say 100K max per transaction, 1M max per day from the same address.

Blacklisting MIM or abracadabra or its addresses or limiting transaction size per address doesn’t fix the next Abracadabra as there are easy ways to bypass it.

This whole leverage works only if there is enough UST being provided by an external source into UST-MIM pools. Otherwise the UST-MIM peg breaks and you can’t exchange it 1:1 (since people want more UST to put into anchor in exchange for their MIM). That external source was TFL.

I doubt this will be an issue in the future anyway once everyone has learned their lesson not to keep providing UST into those pools.

That is why there needs to be rewards for those reporting abuse. Stop abusers when found and verified. Reward the reporter. Abuser funds (part or all) are confiscated and go into the yield reserve fund, thus helping the entire community and up keeping a stable yield. This simple approach would turn abuse from a negative into positive and from eroding to supporting a stable high yield. Let the criminals and fraudsters benefit the society once for a change. And that would be a major disincentive for abuse, and a major positive differentiator for Anchor, as if it’s kept clean a lot more money can come to it, both on deposit and borrow.

2 Likes

If I can believe the tweets I read, TFL itself is the external source of UST that you refer to.

Sorry but start reading the contracts Anchor Protocol · GitHub this is not possible, even if every ANC holder votes yes

You will not be able to stop them, they can create a new address for each deposit automatically and if you code a option into the contract to confiscated the money of anyone in here you will lose EVERYONE because no one will have any guaranty that whats he is putting into the contract is what he gets out.

Btw. where would be the difference to the Bank that can select the customers ? none !

5 Likes

Perhaps the CEO can answer these questions?

Do Kwon :full_moon: on Twitter: “Yo @danielesesta lets do 200M next” / Twitter

4 Likes