PLEASE VOTE THIS NOW!!! PLEASE THANK YOU!
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.
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
“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.
3 Likes
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…
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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
CeFi operates without KYC? And blatantly allows money laundering?
Rhetorical questions, obviously not.
And yes, ‘censorship’ for the good of society (for example, someone just going out and shooting everyone, or driving a car into a pedestrian mall, is not acceptable or allowed under freedom of movement/speech/expression) has been always present in any society. What you are saying is that we should operate like some lawless anarchist zones (like the not too long ago CHOP insanity Seattle), which only results in people getting hurt (in DeFi, people losing their life savings), all to the benefit of the few - the criminals and scammers. What you are proposing, being completely lawless - and flagrantly disregarding the law with zero accountability, only benefits the few at the expense of the many. That is where you and many other differs. Many here think that Anchor should be the protocol for the many, the protocol for the people. You think that it should be the protocol for the few who are free to exploit and abuse it for their own advantage, at the expense of the many (the legitimate regular honest users).
1 Like
You clearly misunderstood the point. More borrowing on Anchor is good. We need it.
By leverage I meant more degen parasites looping aUST 10X on DegenBox to deplete the yield and put us all at risk of a massive dump of UST if they get liquidated. This is bad.
Given the title of the thread and topic of dicussion I assumed this was apparent.
2 Likes
In crypto the code is law, smart contracts are just that… contracts, that don’t require a third party to verify and enforce. You’re painting the MIM strategy as if it’s the only means of looping and as if it is closed off from the public, it wasn’t. Anyone can go now and deposit, anyone can go on Mirror mint, sell and deposit.
I’m not proposing being completly lawless, I keep having to repeat myself because you seem to ignore the part that does not benefit your “for the people” speech, but what you’re defending is a discriminatory system and if history is anything to go by, those all start with good intentions and are soon used to stop innocent people from doing normal things.
All I’m saying, and have said on every post so far is, stop looking for ways to discriminate against one protocol, I’m all down to create all the rules, checks or whatever is required to keep the protocol functioning, as long as they are for everyone and not discriminatory.
Oh and btw, money laundering has happened and keeps happening without crypto for many decades now, KYC hasn’t and won’t stop that, but it has and will keep stopping regular people from opening bank accounts because they were born in the wrong country.
2 Likes
I have never done that. Any means of looping - basically, any scheme for “milking” Anchor for more yield than real deposit/funds one has - should not be allowed, period.
You are right that it should be done within code. It may not be easy, and it might not be perfect, but like so many other things, it likely can be done. That is the long-term solution.
I agree with you on this. It is a slippery slope. And those that gain power practically always give in to egomania (just look at the fearless TFL leader…). That’s human nature.
It’s not perfect, but some semblance of non-anarchy and countering abuse can be achieved via governance and a minimal ToS/AUP, which spells out what the smart contract is built for and intended to allow, and thus if someone finds a loophole gives grounds for it to be stopped (until the code can be patched).
Agreed with you 100% on this.
You are right. I mean look at the biggest offenders of money laundering. It’s hard to find a major bank that is NOT a known money launderer. But, with banks and such, it is greed that goes in. With crypto, if you take out centralization (TFL, Do Kwon here) and thus the irresistible opportunity for greed, then at least willful money laundering should be less prevalent than in normal banking. KYC won’t stop that, but with decentralized KYC (how? where? that is a big question that I have no comprehensive answer for, as I only know so much) and no central party to benefit from allowing “slip-ups” it should likely make it better, not worse.
And if KYC is going to stop things USD-denominated, like UST is, then there is an easy workaround. Any jurisdiction agnostic SDR denominated (SDT) Anchor product, that no one country can claim under its jurisdiction, that should be accessible to everyone.
1 Like
This is why I am proposing to shut down EthAnchor for cross chain deposits. No discrimination. It’s a feature that is no longer available. Simple.
If 3rd parties want to write their own API themselves then they can feel free to do so. We just don’t need to facilitate this ourselves.
Finally for TFL should strongly reconsider partnerships such as Abracadabra (MIM), Qi Dao (MAI), Creditum (cUSD) or any other protocol that aims to pack Anchor with 10x recursive leverage.
They should look to retain yields for organic users while avoiding the systemic risks that we’ve recently seen with Abracadabra / Wonderland.
2 Likes
From my understanding anchors main purpose for even existing is to promote and grow the use of UST. Taking anchor crosschain will help further that as there is now more UST being used. Just because you dont like the affect that that is having on the yield reserve (also dont know why that matters) doesnt mean we should shutdown the entire purpose of anchor. Anchor is created and made a lot of UST being used which is a massive benefit to luna holders as more luna is being burned for that UST. If you are worried about anchor only paying 10% interest and causing UST to plummet, destroying one of UST main use case can also potentially have the same effect. Anchor will also be going even more cross chain by expanding to other chains with v2 from the sounds of it but hopefully with more features such as the borrow side as well but only time will tell. Hell people dont even truly need EthAnchor people can instead just bridge over aUST to any chain they want and boom 20% interest on a stable now exists on that chain.
You’re missing the point. Yes, closing down EthAnchor deposits is indirectly aimed at closing off the Degenbox but also others that just remotely dump UST in Anchor without taking part in the Terra eco.
The Degenbox has offered nothing of value apart from a short term pump for LUNA holders yet it still didn’t prevent it taking a 50% haircut in price did it?
Does growing UST just mean leveraging up and funnelling UST into Earn via TFL?
This Abra/TFL partnership has been terrible idea since it has introduced systemic risk. We’ve already seen strain on the peg when Wonderland decided to deleverage $330m that was parked in Anchor. What more strain are we going to see if the yield reserve doesn’t get topped up?
It doesn’t matter if others want to try to replicate Abracadabra since they’re not going to source the quantity of UST to make this kind of impact.
2 Likes