On the other hand, I do think the small airdrop idea is worth looking at. It will depend on the number of wallets affected and the amount of BZRX sent to each wallet, but it’s a nice gesture and will help those people get involved in governance etc. Of course a lot of them will just dump and sell it, but if it’s not a very large airdrop that might be okay.
I think I answered this in Telegram, but basically this will need input from the dev team as to whether it is technically feasible.
I agree it would be preferable for debt token holders if we could guarantee that the buyout happened only at the $1 price and not a discounted price in the liquidity pool (which is good for the protocol but not for the debt token holders). But I’m not sure how to implement this.
There could be some kind of buyout portal page on the BZX website (instead of, or in addition to, a liquidity pool), which only buys debt tokens at $1. But the problem with this is that it just favours the first few people to use it.
So for example if each month $100k in fees is added to the buyout portal, then the first few people to use the pool can sell their entire debt and get out - while anyone who is even slightly slower won’t get any benefit at all. We should try to find a situation that doesn’t result in a race.
As I was saying in Telegram, the team (about half of the BZRX losses) are receiving vBZRX, which is vesting slowly till 2024. It’s not exactly the same as being locked, but it is similar and they can’t really dump the BZRX easily.
The other half is not locked in any way, but while some people will of course sell it, I don’t think the vast majority of the long term BZRX holders receiving this will sell anytime soon (especially not until the rebrand).
Doing this will make it much much much more difficult and take much, much longer to repay the debt (you’re basically saying that the protocol should denominate debt tokens in the tokens that were stolen, instead of USD, and also that the protocol should commit to paying yield on those tokens). I think it is too much of a burden on the protocol.
Plus if this bull market turns into a bear next year, you might actually be happier to get stables back than to get BTC…
I don’t think it is a much of a burden on the protocol and i think it is very possible through a slow but steady transformation of the Treasury and using more DeFi and Proof of stake protocols to get more Cryptoexposure!
If you are compensating bzx holders in full and primarily before the other victims, their bzrx should be frozen for at least one year. So we are guaranteed that they are not going to dump it. “Bzx holders long term supporters and they are not going to do this, rebranding is coming etc etc etc”. I simply don’t believe this and don’t trust anyone here. Sorry to say that, but it’s reality of life.
If they need bzrx to participate in voting, they could get certain amount of tokens in a ratio to the amount before the hack happened. So it will be the same vote representation.
From telegram channel we were informed that bzrx stolen address was frozen. How could he vote? Even if he will be able to vote, you know the address and the amount of tokens he holds and can exclude it manually.
Looking back at the history of the voting, only 2-6 addresses participated in voting. Also users in telegram stated that they never participated in voting because of the fees and because voting were coming their way. I don’t think that they will participate this time again.
Now coming to the debt token and refund mechanism. I support the idea and philosophy behind the debt token. But I disagree on revenue allocation to this debt token. 20% is peanuts, we will be getting our lost funds for ages. It should be at least 60%. Otherwise you are just taking us as hostages of your project.
And the last, I don’t like the notion that bzx holders somehow more important to the project and superior considered to other users. We staked/lended different type of assets to this platform and should be treated with respect and equally. Without us the whole idea of bzx wouldn’t work.
is the same for people that people that will first go to market, just share the information everywhere and people who are interested will know. This problem will be in every situation. But like this you are sure that you get back what they promise and will be not a gambling, and also like this debt token can have a market so, if not will be only a way for company for pay less the debt buying back from market
As it was mentioned by team members platform generates 10k revenue per day. If you are going to allocate 20% of revenue to buy back debt tokens. It will take 54,8 years to buy back 40mln usd debt.
Now question to everyone who lost other assets. Are you going to wait 50+ years to get your funds?
you are forgetting several factors:
-Users. If users increase, fees increase. If you promote the project (not just you but entire community, either shillpost or whatever) , you will be able to get back what you lost faster. See to my first post
-DAO can make votes in periods when possible, and price of the rebrand token increases, can choose to pay off more of the debt.
This would be unsustainable for the protocol and the DAO would highly downvote this proposition. You need to consider that token price of the utility token, BZRX/Ooki is something that needs to be factored in. The higher the price of the token, the better it is to run the protocol in order to pay down the debt.
Someone on Telegram wanted multi debt token per asset, debt-BTC, debt-ETH, debt-BUSD, debt-insert token. It sounds like this one below here:
It’s not about what’s fair, it’s about what method is realistically possible. If you suggest this, as i see it, the amount of time you’ll get debt in each asset will take hell of a lot longer time to get back so you can claim it in the amount you try to claim. Alot longer than one debt token.
We’re talking decades
If you know of a more fair plan than the current proposal, by all means, explain the method on how to pursue this
I think we should focus on the justification of the 20%. Is this a fair amount? How did we come to this figure?
Debt token holders should get seniority on the earnings first. The payout should be not so high that there is enough cash to fund operating costs, but not so low that it will take half a century to repay.
Badri already answered this on Telegram but guess it’s good to paste it here:
“It’s a balance between doing the compensation payment faster and making the BZRX/OOKI token less attractive to hold. The higher we make the debt token share, the less attractive it is to hold OOKI/BZRX and the protocol suffers. I actually started with 10% and changed to 20%. I don’t mind 25% or so, but something like 40% will damage the protocol IMHO. But let’s see what people think”
I think 20-25% is sustainable. And everyone keeps on thinking fees will be stuck at 10k per day. It’s variable. If we have omega whale borrowers, 350k USD worth of fees will be generated in just one week. This happened at the beginning of the BSC Fulcrum.
i would agree with a 25% fee portion for the buyback instead of 20%
Please share financial model or whatever mathematical calculations were used to come up to 20%. This figure should be backed by some rationale and calculations.
Assumption that number of users will grow is kind of weak at the moment. To make a decision we need to take into account current state of the project. That would give us most conservative base case scenario.
As alternative, allocate 60% of revenue to repay the debt, but if daily revenue will be higher than X amount of USD per day. Then allocation percentage will decrease to certain amount.
Please understand, if you take something from us (not refunding us in the beginning), then you should give something back (increasing revenue allocation to debt).
I totally don’t get it why use bZx vBzx like just why ? Anyway migration is around the corner so why not use ooki and use the ooki and compensate it to the bZx users and to the team just as if the exploit never occured ( omit the hackers wallet and pay those who had bZx vBZX and others with the ooki tokens as its intended ) with it there won’t be any big need to break the treassury , so WHY not ?
This solves the native bZx lost just like that ,and all the money with the protocol can be used to compensate others who lost non natives , the ooki from the team or others can be user to incentivise or make the compensation faster for external users than giving the people some bZx then migration to ooki
20% was admitted by BadriNat as just an arbitrary and invented number. There ought to be some more realistic financial modelling here to arrive at numbers like this.
Assumptions are that that the users will grow. That they will grow more if 20% profits are spent on repayment. Basing this opinion on reality and not wishful thinking is warranted here.
Any conservative models? This proposal is a gamble on the protocol. If they 5x in growth we’re still looking at 10 years to pay back funds. They would need to 10x in order for us to get paid back in 5 years at this number.
Why is the idea that the usership and profits will MORE than 10x the BASIC underlying assumption? The entire proposal depends on this and this is wishful thinking at its best.
Selling everything, burning the protocol to give everyone even 30% losses within the next month or two is even starting to look better, more realistic and practical in the light of this 20% of profits.
Fees are currently 50% given to the treasury and insurance fund. Why not reduce this to 20% and use a 30% of those to pay back the debt token? This would not affect users and honestly replenishing the treasury while it still has a debt to pay seems kind of pointless
It is clear you are really optimistic on the growth of the platform. Balanced decision making also requires some skeptical and conservative views, does it not? How can you plan accurately with wild hopium?
Yes of course there should be room for skepticism, but I do not see how much better these conservative views as you call it have reflected on how they are to execute what they deem to be a solid plan.
But seeing the roadmap plans, and not doing things to end up like Cream, Badri’s proposal seem realistic.
The rebrand plans are in the works already, closed beta participants have given feedback.
This ain’t hopium mate. This is what is on the roadmap.
I do encourage you to come up with a well-thought out plan as well. We are all in this together
We already clearly stated our plan. And still awaiting answers on our simple questions from the author of this thread.
I think you have misunderstood. Around 9m BZRX on BSC is currently blocked from leaving BSC. But the attacker successfully bridged over 30m BZRX from Polygon to Ethereum and he most certainly can use that to vote, and on-chain votes cannot manually blacklist addresses from voting.
Sorry to be blunt, but anyone who lost money in this attack - myself included - is a hostage to the project already for compensation. That’s not because of the proposal, it’s because of the hacker.
And the fact is 20% or 30% or whatever doesn’t really matter that much for debt token holders. It matters a lot for Ooki holders and the attractiveness of the Ooki token, but for debt token holders, there are only two outcomes: either the project is successful and the debt gets paid off really quickly even if it is only 20% (think of how quickly DyDx went from millions to billions of trading volume per day - even Fulcrum had one day a few months ago where it earned $200k in fees), OR it fails and the debt is never repaid.
This point is explained in detail in my post and on Telegram. Remember that the BZRX holders are the people who have to vote for the compensation plan - you can’t give them a deal that they don’t like.