Indeed, the longer we go without a clear strategy in place, the taller our Jenga tower of ecosystem apps that depend on Anchor’s earn rate to attract new users becomes.
That said, I’m not convinced that urgency breeds the best solution but we should be mindful that simplicity and legitimacy go hand in hand.
Yet another thought: This is open source and up to vote, sure. If it doesn’t pass interested parties are welcome to implement it anyway making another app on the Terra ecosystem. If it does pass, others are also welcome to try their hand at recreating a different app that keeps 20% base APY depositor return. Either way this DOES NOT kill the competing ideas. Those pushing through the variable rate and/or veANC tokenomics remember this, because if others succeed at keeping 20% APY, yer tanked and dead in the market. Since we’re here, let’s try keep 20% base for a while yet. Not just for one year of us degen crypto geeks and few financial backers. For all was and is the idea.
Why this a vote issue? Go make a variabke return rate deposit bank on Terra nothing’s stopping anyone. Don’t even gotta do it from scratch just copy the Anchor github repository code and tweak it. Take Anchor over with this and others come out giving 20% APY and succeed, good luck competing with it =)
This type of change i’m saying may split the community. Which may not be bad. Other bank platforms on Terra can pop up no matter which way vote goes. If yes to this or no to this pisses someone off do something about it and create the competition 
I still vote no to this proposal, am one of those think we ain’t even given Anchor v2 and other bcollaterals a chance or at least got data regarding em.
Anchor’s only central for now because it is the only one of it’s kind in filling niche in Terra. Please, create competitors. Market space is young. No need to dominate existing project when it’s copyable, waste of time/funds. Do it yerself or take over and other will do it themselves anyway.
I thought about this even more.
This proposal breaks $aust fungibility, it removes it’s ability to go multichain. The bridge wallets would only earn 10% interest ?
It will likely remove liquidity at the peg because Kujira and Whitewhale won’t be able to hold AUST as collateral
The whole design of $aust would be broken, you don’t get more $aust, $aust is worth more. It would fundamentally change what Anchor is.
Please stick to tradfi guys, you guys are really bad at DEFI, this would create a LOT more collateral damage than it would save yield reserves.
DEFI is about incentives, not rules.
Fix the incentives if you don’t like the burn rate of anchor.
I think everyone agrees we need to land and have things closer to fundamentals. The disagreement is on the timeline.
Is this going to include businesses as well as individuals? What is the feedback from developers in the community? What is the impact to Angel Protocol for exampe? Has any thought been given to how much money could be pulled from Anchor by limiting 500K plus to 10%? I’m assuming it has or this isn’t ready for proposal. Could someone please share with me the data? Thanks!
A quote from the head of ANCHOR:
Matt Cantieri 
@mcantieriThis is a HARD NO, imo.
Overly-complicated code likely to be circumvented, opens attack vectors on the Earn side, and breaks aUST fungibility. You could just use multiple accounts to manipulate the hell out of this.
Also makes cross-chain efforts much more difficult.
Suicide.
If anything, this just shows us we need a higher hurdle for proposals. Anybody can show up, have a few ideological twitter discussions, and throw a meaningless proposal up with 1,000 ANC and no thought to how this will be implemented, let alone how this will affect the greater Terra ecosystem. This proposal is so tone deaf to the ethos of Anchor, and its goals. I’m buying more ANC just to vote against it.
I am voting no for this proposal. The proposal does not address the implementation and funding for development. How would the variable interest rate be enforced with the current system? Adding variant aUST-19.5, aUST-10, and aUST-15 would be able to be bought off the open market like UST-aUST arb pairs, people can just buy the aUST-19.5 off the open market and bypass the wallet limits. I mean you can make them non-transferable, but then you break the fungibility other protocols use aUST for. I feel like there are still gaps missing on these technical areas and the projects that build on Anchor.
I am not in favor of this proposal either, but 18 million ANC voting ‘yes’ speaks volumes about people’s desire that rent seeking protocols should be specifically targeted.
Matt Cantieri - How about getting off your Twitter box and come in this forum sometime to present your ideas for sustainability?
15M anc apparently from the proposer:
Well that is interesting. It seems the Anchor wars have already started in earnest.
What’s to stop a protocol from being built that acts as a custodian for users wanting to max out their yield? All it’d have to do is create new wallets any time the total deposit in a wallet exceeds the minimum cap and roll the excess deposits into said new wallet. Wow~ More risk would be introduced. Not the best idea. Unneeded friction imo.
Better Idea: Just scale the yield based on current protocol income with a rolling/lagging average that the yield reserve supports during days of low income. Under this method, the yield reserve could grow on days of high income. Protocol income goes up? APY goes up slowly to match and vice versa: problem solved. No more unsustainable yield.
This is not only a very divisive proposal but has very little to do with improving Anchor protocol.
While I believe that Anchor needs work, I do not believe that this is the path to achieve sustainability.
Partially, because fragmenting the aUST yield kills composability, but also from an enforcement perspective…
Splitting the aUST over multiple wallets/smart contracts would not only happen straight away from a manual perspective… however there would be multiple projects popping up to specifically allow people to automate bypassing it.
I believe that this breaks things without actually fixing any underling problems.
This is not only a very divisive proposal but has very little to do with improving Anchor protocol. A solution to the sustainability of the Anchor yield reserves has to include both earning and borrowing sides. Lastly, while TFL is working very hard on improving UST cross chain adoption the last thing we need is something that introduces various technical challenges and has an unpredictable and potentially negative impact on the terra ecosystem.
Relatively new here.
I think if you’re talking about such a drastic reduction in yield, the benefit of creating multiple wallets is too great and will occur at more than just the margins.
I favor lowering the yield across the board and a modest withdrawal fee to potentially buy back ANC
Absolutely agree. I have no idea why we’re making this so contentious and complex.
No. A flat change to a modest 18% will save millions of dollars, can’t be gamed, and it is a 2 key stroke code change, so safe to do.
I mean, I think the argument is basically over, if we see the results of the voting.
As I said in my first post, the most annoying thing of all this is that for some reason they are thinking we plebs are dumb, or something.
Well, off to the races. But this kind of “bro playing” usually ends with the destruction, value wise, of the protocol. I’m sure Do , Michael and others are reading this forum. The next months can be interesting…