beth ltv is live here: Anchor Protocol
Lets deploy this.
Hey, please find my suggestions in this forum topic:
Figured this one is getting sort of large and thereās some adjustments the community would like to discuss with OPās before launching this so we donāt end up with another polychain problem where the poll goes live and then things come out of the woodworks after marketing is done on the poll.
I think @davidkohcw is very right the runway is too narrow and incentives not strong enough for this model, the 2 suggestions provide stronger reasoning for holding veANC and extends runway to a reasonable timeframe for big players to get in on the borrow.
Overall a great suggestion.
This might be a personal risk appetite, but Iām not sure people will borrow more by incentivizing higher ANC emissions. I wonder if we can do some sort of a vote for this to get an idea of what people think.
Do we expect the flywheel effect(lock>emissions) to overcome the higher inflation rate by increasing anc emissions for borrowing?
What about exploring the idea of higher rewards for basset providers as this generates more revenue?
1 Like
veANC would let us direct where to send the rewards ANC emissions for borrowers, so that we can pick the best collaterals to have the best borrowing rates.
2 Likes
I have to say this proposal looks too complex and complicated to understand the future impact on the project.
True, we have to give the token extra utility so holding increase.
Also true, locked ANC for long periods of time exchanged for veANC for greater voting power is good because who locks for 4 years is more interested in long term sustainability rather than the ones who lock for 1 year and by far the ones that donāt even lock.
veANC locked for 4 years needs yo have greater voting power than locked for 1 one year.
But, Even not locked ANC (regular ANC) needs to have voting power (fewer, but needs to).
VeANC can have higher staking benefits than regular staked ANC. But has to be carefully determinated.
A portion of Protocol earnings directed to veANC holders is a yes for me, only if there are more incomes than expenses and treasury increases ( right now is inverse) so they understand that bad decisions in poll voting or not putting work (seeking continued improvement) will lead to no earnings. But, first is the buying of ANCs tokens from the extra yield/earnings to pump the price. And then, if theres money left, pay them.
About borrowers, I donāt like the idea that by locking the given ANCs will receive veANCs and could Boost by 50% their ANC emissions. THIS ONE IS A NO GO FOR ME.
The āfree ANCs for borrowersā is the main token price problem. When they see that ANC token price is getting higher, part of them will start to hold.
Also, when borrowers realize that is way better to ask for a loan in Anchor Protocol because of the āfree next gem tokenā they Will migrate from other platforms.
If this strategy doesnt work and they keep selling ASAP, then we can talk about giving them opportunity to lock veANCs but not to receive 50% more ANCs. Instead, they could get lower interest rate for borrowing. Thats what they really want at the end of the day.
Thanks for reading.
This proposal isnt that complex. It has previous examples we can borrow off (Curve) See my post about proposed modifications, albeit no interest on them.
This prop is currently our best running prop for modifying Anchor tokenomics and the economic model of the anchor token. It is well focused and addresses major problems. There are some good counter points brought up by @davidkohcw but these have been / can be addressed in discussions and are not a reason to kill the prop for another running one.
We could probably bring this to poll now but Iād like to see some modifications based on com. feedback by @atari @tetris @Pong before itās propped up. Theyāve also stated likewise on the OP. Team has been dark for some time since discussion started on this prop, most of the combined prop. has been executed at this time (wbtc we can easily push in, any one of us can poll for it right now if wanted). So maybe its time we get some information from stakeholders leaked to the community.
@narco78 do you know anything about whatās rolling on behind the scenes regarding TFL / LFG / and Anchor team at this time? Your observations have been on point from everything I can see.
1 Like
The code for the ve-tokenomics has been written and is being audited by Bt-block. There are some ways to make the ve-tokenomics stronger which I am researching and hope to share soon.
6 Likes
Small users donāt benefit from this proposal and those that seek to ādiversify riskā by adopting ANC governance in different wallets to those they use for borrow are not advantaged in any way.
I like Pedroās earlier analysis on this whole topic and that borrower attraction is key to anchorās long term sustainability proposition but disagree that its earners that need incentivising.
Curve works on liquidity provision - ANC is not a liquidity provider in the same sense.
Adopting principles and theories and supposed market forces for an apple are not fit for an orange and therefore do not benefit the average
Large wallets and providers of collateral benefit for a while - is there any empirical evidence supporting the veModels post the first unlock periods unwinding? Not yet as none have got to the point of unlocks occurring. So we have another āunnaturalā period before the locked liquidity returns to market by which point the entire space has changed.
veModels provide short-term outcomes - but maybe thats acceptable and for the large wallets, the $ value of ANC required to influence outcomes is not material.
This is wonderfully thought through and we have some great feedback here. Letās try it. The best way to see if this works is to make it happen and make adjustments along the way.
1 Like