not even a code change, it’s just gov proposal: Anchor
This is a disturbing proposal that sets a dangerously low standard for intellectual honesty going forward.
We cannot seriously consider designing economic mechanisms and arguing that they won’t be taken advantage of with the logic that “it would be an operational nightmare.”
The logic is simple: if the ‘operational nightmare’ is worth an extra 5% yield on the position, it will be done. The larger the position, the more likely this is the case. More so, the marginal difficulty/cost of an additional account in a sybil is inversely correlated to the amount of accounts you create:
difficulty(2 accounts) < difficulty (5 accounts) ~=~ difficulty (10 accounts)
The ONLY positive outcome of such a proposal would be the granularization of the larger positions, which would make the liquidation process much more fluid and, thereby, efficient. However, this point has not been articulated at all, and therefore I have to assume that it has not been contemplated.
Just lower the yield across the board. Or… set the real yield <= the actual yield of the collateralized assets. These are the only two viable sustainable solutions.
1 Like
Is this dump happening because of this proposal? Think it’s best to try alternative methods before pissing people off. Think a lot of people came here to get a return on UST while the Market is down. We should implement a plan to make the ANC token more valuable by adding more utility to it.
I’m here to beat inflation, which is at 15.5% in the US (using the old formula the FED used to use). It’s not the 7.5% BS that .gov wants us to believe. This number will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.
If the yield drops to near 15%, I’m back to shopping for a new savings protocol to beat inflation.
Speaking to the risk of keeping a 20% yield where it is would be helpful as I’m new to Anchor.
1 Like
Hi All - Important update: we’re no longer pursuing Anchor Proposal #18. Thank you so much to all that offered feedback throughout this process. To give a little more insight into our thinking, I encourage you to visit the Medium post below. Thanks again - we cannot wait to see the outcome of the conversations this proposal has spurred.
2 Likes
Smashing work guys, love the voting analysis you guys did. Your entirely right, as most of us community members have learned its incredibly difficult to get a proposal to pass. You need both the support of the community and the developers / key stakeholders followed by enough marketing momentum to get the proposal going. It’s honestly not much different to traditional politics, however voting is not 1 vote per person, it is first past the post.
Tons to be learned from this one proposal, most importantly is that Anchor is resistant to wealth concentration.
Lets get back to the drawing board with the rest of the community to solve Anchor’s biggest problem, sustainable yield.
1 Like
As the co-author of the proposal with Polychain I wanted to thank everyone in the community for their feedback and insights both supportive and challenging. We have put tremendous thought and effort into catalyzing positive change. Regardless of outcome we all should be proud of setting a new standard for engagement and governance participation at Anchor, unmatched in the industry with a 70% plus participation rate. That level of engagement is revolutionary for digital assets. For the 18m tokens and 42% of wallets that voted in support of the proposal, your voice has been heard. We would welcome an opportunity to work with the leadership of Anchor and the community to continue to advance change that is positive for adoption, the sustainability of the protocol, value for ANC token holders, and is broadly supported by the community.
This has to be one of the worst proposals I’ve ever seen here, and it’s kinda concerning that you are trying to sell it as something you thought about a lot.
Just the fact that creating wallets and splitting money is easy and would 100% be abused is “a nightmare” for you makes my bells ring.
Yes, you generated a 72% participation because your proposals screams that you have no underlying understanding of the cryptosphere and/or coding the actual stuff.
Same goes for your try to value ANC more.
Turned on the notification bell for your future great ideas…
Makes absolutely no sense, adds extra complexity and achieves nothing. So downvote from me. Seriously, if someone manages more than a hundred thousand dollars, how hard is it to split amongst multiple wallets?
1 Like
The issue is that this will never pass. I agree that the whale accounts are an issue. The problem is mainly that the big accounts also have a lot of ANC and can easily vote to overpower anyone who has less than them.
This is clearly the reason why this proposal is nonsense
1 Like