Disable MIM Degenbox (Poll/14)

Another upcoming protocol that might be less controversial than Abracadabra is
called “The Standard Protocol” https://thestandard.io/
(Not yet live, so below are some assumptions)

I believe The Standard Protocol would let a user deposit aUST collateral in their smart vaults and borrow a stable coin (initially sEUR, an algorithmic/collateralized stable EUR) that can
be traded for UST and looped like Abracadabra/MIM.

I haven’t tried MIM myself, but, for some reason, The Standard Protocol approach seems like
it would be something I would do. Perhaps not 10x looping, but perhaps 3-4x?

Hopefully a way of making Anchor more robust to larger inflows of depositors will be found!

This poll is absolutely right to be here. We need to get rid of unethical activities in the system.


The poll seems like an emotion driven knee jerk reaction to the recent price action of Luna.

Saying that EthAnchor offers zero value to the protocol is beyond preposterous. It is one of the fundamental infrastructure for Terra’s interchain money lego roadmap. Orion on Eth relies on EthAnchor.

Listen, I hear your feeling. But lets move cautiously and definitely don’t “act first and ask questions later”. Once things get passed, its often hard to unwind.

Can you provide one single benefit Orion Money brings to Anchor?

How is this a kneejerk reaction since we’ve been discussing this exact issue unfolding for almost 2 months? And yet here we are.


Everyone that is voting to disable MIM has a massive misunderstanding on how anchor works.

If this proposal passes anchor will have to be rewritten to allow blacklists of certain wallets interacting with it which will stop ethanchor from depositing directly but wont stop abracadabra if they just buy aust on the market they will still get the 20%. If they want to stop degenbox from ever getting the 20% then anchor will have to be rewritten completely to change how it handles its interest “payouts” from just appreciating aust to keeping track of how much a wallet has earned and then sending that to the wallet when they withdrawal. At that point aust will no longer exist and wreck anything using aust such as mirror and kajira coming up. There is no way to really stop one person/wallet from earning 20% without everyone losing 20%. Hell they dont even need to go through ethanchor they can just bridge to a smart contract on terra that monitors its balances for UST and deposits it for aUST and then monitors for aUST and sends it back to abra. There is 0% chances of anything being done and thats just the way it is. There is also nothing wrong with what abra is doing there are literal thousands of people leveraging using anchor but on the borrow side like i am to get access to more luna. Is that also “illegal” even though its how almost everything leveraged works and has always existed in every single market. Theres also nothing stopping from a abra alternative from spinning up doing the exact same thing.

1 Like

Ok, you might have not been following this, but this goes beyond just ‘let’s disable MIM or let’s block EthAnchor’.

This issue needs raising with Terraform Labs. What their involvement has been and why? Who have they been working with? Why they’ve been embezzling hundreds of millions of UST indirectly through the Degenbox with disregard for systemic risk? What are their plans to back out of this now it’s clear they’ve been working with known criminals and there’s contagion building?

People are voting for this poll since they are worried and frustrated and there’s no other way to get their voice heard.

Do we just sweep this under the carpet and hope that the $1.4B of Abracadabra exposure doesn’t suddenly get rugged?


Anyone who would like to be in business with cast of lowlife scumbags and criminals outlined in the videos above is out of their mind.

We are talking about a safe haven stablecoin ecosystem. If you want to play high risk degen/ponzi/massive leverage games then go do it, don’t put the rest of us at risk.


We need to get this done as soon as possible to create prevent fraudulent activities…

1 Like

Almost everything in here has been about just axing EthAnchor or disabling MIM somehow with absolutely 0 realistic ideas on how to do it.

If your guys problem is with TFL partnering with them and giving them UST, which i agree with you guys there, then this discussion should be happening in the actual luna forums not the anchor forums to create a poll to end the partner ship with Degenbox. Who TFL partners with for UST has nothing to do with anchor since the other side can do whatever they want with the UST. That is not what this discussion is about though.


We are talking about a safe haven stablecoin ecosystem. If you want to play high risk degen/ponzi/massive leverage games then go do it, don’t put the rest of us at risk.

So you want everyone to stop borrowing on anchor because its high risk or because they are leveraging? Anchor literally only works and is able to pay out the earn side because of people like me borrowing UST and doing something with it. What i am doing is massively more beneficial that those borrowing and then depositing their entire loan into anchor earn since they are just eating the interest the borrow side is generating. Not enough borrowers is exactly why we are in this mess to begin with where we can not support the 20% interest and are instead pulling from the reserves.

1 Like

Orion serves the exact same purpose as anchor serves, to speed up UST adoption by allowing UST to be used cross chain.

1 Like

This proposal and thread has become a mess.

I don’t use Anchor at the moment, I was using exclusively for borrowing against ETH and Luna but pulled months ago for various reasons. I’m excited as hell to be moving back with the increased LTV proposal. I also hold the earned governance tokens since I believe in the compound effect. MIM has no effect on me and as such doesn’t have an effect on depositors.

The only feasible way for any sort of semblence of this proposal to be enacted would be to disable trading of aUST, making it a deposit receipt only. Even then that can be circumvented I have no idea why someone staked 1000 ANC for this.

I understand that information can be complex and confusing especially in De-Fi but DYOR before voting on this proposal. None of this effects Anchor what-so-ever apart from a yield reserve number going down. It’s exactly why Do put out the tweet how much yield reserve you want. Because it doesn’t matter. Worst case is Anchor goes to variable deposit rates and it STILL would out compete just about every other lending platform out there.

If your thinking like I am the 80% LTV increase should be able to double the dollar amount lent out so far. This along with Anchor V2 can add another 2-3bn total to borrowing. Making MIM much less scary than it looks.


What adoption does it provide? Cross chain EthAnchor bleeds out APY and offers nothing back in return to balance it out. That UST is stuck in ETH and cannot move out into the wider Terra Eco system. It is valueless inflow and a net negative.

The Anchor experiment of an all you can eat deposit buffet has failed. Lower yields drives UST back out. EthAnchor makes no sense.

As for the Degenbox, we still have yet to receive a formal answer if the APY on EthAnchor can be set to zero. Can anyone confirm?

If it can be done this would give TFL an easy way to back out of this situation before the whole saga turns into a global criminal investigation.


So excited to hear this has made you come back. These are the kind of things we need to focusing on IMO

This is not possible. You would have to re-write the entire aUST logic for this. As mentioned before this is not a very well thought out proposal.

IMO, we need to be looking at how to add more utility to ANC. Ideally, instead of this poll, something along the lines of requiring smart contracts to have x% of aUST balance to use the protocol is something that would stand more of a chance because it could have more clearly defined implementable terms.

It doesn’t look like this poll will pass. Passing things requires a bit more than posting a poll without warning or posting a forum link with it for implementing reference. This helps get more community support which is really needed if major stakeholders are not engaged, as they were not here.


“Don’t Confuse Kindness With Weakness.”

People confuse permissionless with “let people do whatever the they want”. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you have absolute freedom (try saying “bomb” on the plane, or making verbal death threats to a presiden).

Permissionless was created in context of cefi banks doing all kinds of legal compliance + applying regulatory controls. Not in context of yield extracting automation that would suck the ecosystem dry.

Permissionless does not mean anything is permitted.


Exactly! That’s the basic concept that many here seem to not understand. Permission-less doesn’t mean that Anchor is to be used for money laundering (Sesta & associates of abracadabra, allegedly), other illegal activity, or immoral and unethical schemes to drain the APY by artificially extracting multiples of yield relative to the actual deposit. It doesn’t mean a free-for-all.

I would expect some sort of decentralized KYC by many, if not most, of the more upstanding participants in Anchor, and DeFi in general. Third-party verifies that the customer meets the required criteria, but the actual operator doesn’t get access to the customer’s private information, neither does the platform. Permission-less in DeFi can only work if it is used responsibly, where not yet but probably in a year or two, DeKYC is likely to become the norm.

That’s a fun way of saying you don’t mind censorship as long as you don’t agree with what is being said. I mean, it’s in the name, Permissionless… Permission-less, without the need for permission.

Rules are defined in the smart contract that they used, they did not use anything they were not allowed, no exploit was used, this very same concept exists in the CeFi that y’all seem so hell bent in recreating.

And again, everyone seems fine with ignoring all the other avenues where this is already possible today, and already being used by many… so this is in-fact censorship against one particular protocol. But keep trying to paint it as anything else…


Nice try but a complete fallacy of an argument.

Yearn Finance have a TVL limit on their vaults to prevent yield dilution for other users. Yet they vote for this via governance. I guess you call them CeFi due to this?

How about Bitcoin holding their 1MB blocksize to prevent transaction flooding and ledger bloat. I guess you would also call that a permissioned system since it censors spammers?

This thread has been about identification of abuse and the discussion about protocol amendments to prevent it ie - Governance… Nothing to do with Ce-Fi.


I can also say nice try to you… Everything you said affects all users the same way, while this thread is called “Disable MIM degenbox”, I’ve shown time and time again that I too believe solutions need to be discussed, yet this thread is about the censorship of one single protocol.

I don’t recall bitcoin having larger block sizes for KYCed users, that would make it permissioned, you would need permission to exceed the default block size, everyone has been given the same rules. This is the equivalent of Bitcoin attempting to limit the block size for the lightning network because some users feel it’s abusing the block space, and “normal” users deserve more.

Here, nothing has been abused, no part of the smart contracts have been exploited… there’s a flaw with the design, simple as that. Nothing I said is against the use of governance, and governance has spoken, people care so little of the topic that it didn’t even reach quorum.

1 Like