Set daily withdrawal limits for USDT and USDC

Proposal ID

New deposits/repays do not currently cover the demand.
We are in a strange place: everyone wants to withdraw, but:

  • ∙ vToken price is barely discounted(read: noone “just wants exit”),
  • ∙ few huge bot accounts drain all incoming liquidity(small accounts get nothing);

In order to:

  • ∙ protect small investors,
  • ∙ mitigate the squeeze;

We propose to set a limit on withdrawals per account per day for the problematic markets.

For USDT market, there’re 17 000 depositors:

  • ~ 2600(15% of total) depositors > 100 USDT
  • ~ 1700(10% of total) > 1000 USDT
  • ~ 600(3.5% of total) > 10000 USDT
  • ∙ top 3 accounts have > 40M USDT each

Given the current pace of repays/deposits, setting a limit to 1000 USDT and 1000 USDC per 24h per address will

  • ∙ block huge bots from consuming all the liquidity(no amount will be enough these days for them),
  • ∙ help 90% of users instantly,
  • ∙ 96.5% of users can be out in 10 days;

As the system starts working again, the limits can be gradually extended or even removed at all.

Transaction Payload

  "type": 12,
  "version": 2,
  "data": [
      "key": "limiter",
      "type": "string",
      "value": "3PFoA1JFDoLWQJ3DqzAHNrrWR4riVuBfHks"
      "key": "WithdrawLimitTimeframe",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 1440
      "key": "34N9YcEETLWn93qYQ64EsP1x89tSruJU44RrEMSXXEPJ_WithdrawLimitAcc",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 1000000000
      "key": "6XtHjpXbs9RRJP2Sr9GUyVqzACcby9TkThHXnjVC5CDJ_WithdrawLimitAcc",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 1000000000
  "senderPublicKey": "3gQ8QUfoGQW6YVuhUv3zuqsbmxbV5F2FAuDXJqVKD6C9",
  "fee": 50000000,
  "feeAssetId": "WAVES",
  "timestamp": 1650781800000

Let’s make the limit 20k$. 1000$ is very small amount.


10-20K would be better. 1000 is way too small. That having been said I think the proposal is a good one. The unfortunate truth is that our overlords will never let this pass because it would hamstring their ability to move their millions of dollars around. No proposal that doesn’t directly benefit the 3-5 whales on Vires will ever pass again.

1 Like

Many small depositors find the hope for this proposal.

Although I’ll take one Month to withdraw all of my money,
the good place is there is no discount withdraw for this proposal.

For the sake of Vires works fine, I can accept to leave 1000U per day.

Maybe someday the liquidity come back, I can come back to Vires again.


The proposals don’t matter, now that the team has blatantly stolen millions with the previous passed proposal after lying and saying they wouldn’t vote.

Now they’re proposing to rug the last 550 million.

This isn’t complicated, whoever is complicit in this scam will have to pay back every penny.


An acceptable proposal, but it is a pity that it punishes those who are not at fault: usdt/c big/medium suppliers.

The culprits of the situation remain unaffected by a proposal. I imagine that so much protection is due to the fact that they are from the team itself, I don’t understand anything else.


The proposition make sens but 1000 is very low for those that provided with 6 figures or more and are are now stuck for a very long time with no visibility.

Please add some timeframe to the “temporary” part of proposal? How long could this last?

Proposition say “it could be extended or even removed”, does it mean it could also stay undefinitely? It would really help to have some precisions on this.

For example if it stay unclear like its temporary but may stay also, i’ll have no choice than start withdraw daily, because i cannot have my funds locked indefinity and if need it, wait for many months to get it back, if the temporary timeframe is precise and clear about when it end, i wont need start withdraw daily as long as it is reasonable.

1 Like

My concern with this proposal is that it doesn’t establish a definitive dynamic algorithm in order to limit withdraw according to available liquidity. Having to vote for changing this parameter back and forth when situation like this happen and then again when normalizes, is not a good approach. It is better than nothing, but still not satisfactory. We can’t depend on voting for this everytime.


$1000, is too small! 20k may be right!

1 Like

This is a great idea. We need to slowly return to normal conditions in order to renew trust in Vires. This proposal will help the majority. YES


as i am a mid or big lender, this proposal is annoying.

It is just impossible for me to withdraw my funds. Even with 10k daily it would be impossible.

I am not against, to wait longer. i even increase my funds during this crisis to support vires.

But such a limit is useless for us mid or big lenders.

Maybe the vires team could contact the bigger lenders and offer them an other option. For me it would be ok, if I could get 25% out of vires, just in case btc or eth are dropping. So as an option.

1 Like

Actually doesn’t punish them, because right now they can’t withdraw. With the limit they will be able to do so. Just read the proposal description.

Right now your withdraw power is zero.

1 Like

Sure, but other many options release this blocking. For example, anyone that liquidates, slowly or quickly, the accounts with so much usdt/usdc borrowed.

For large USDT/USDC suppliers, $1000/day is really not much.

If you have followed the situation, you will see that the most logical thing was to try to end the problem: liquidate large usdt/usdc borrowers. They were in a losing position and still wouldn’t return the cash. However, a proposal has been approved against the suppliers and in favor of these few big ones.

The suppliers will end up fleeing from the system, it makes no sense for them to block your money for an indefinite period of time and also lower your interest without any logic.

This proposal is for solving the problem that big bots are withdrawing before anyone else can do manually. I think you are mixing different proposals.

I agree with 1000 being too small but it’s a good idea.

I don’t believe with whales going to prevent it; whales did not supply any money anyway, so I doubt they care who is getting the tiny USDT/C payments back.

1 Like

I agree with this request, I would also add that unused withdrawal is accrued by account, this is to avoid pushing everyone to withdrawing if they don’t really feel like it.

So if I don’t withdraw day1 then on Day2 I can withdraw 2000$ and so on.


Question for @admin or other who know the Waves blockchain

Is this address a wallet or Neutrino contract address ?

It had 63 million Waves in April 9th. It now only has 60 millions.

It looks like 3 millions waves have been unstaked and swapped for 60 millions USDN.

I do not know if it can impact Waves price or USDN liquidity but can someone look into this ?

Why is it of interest for this proposal will you ask…
Well, we are going to limit USDC/USDT withdrawal. So many users might decide to swap their LP for USDN on exchange.
Interestingly enough, there is about 550m of locked USDT/USDC.
So, It is not difficult to think that:

  • Someone sold Waves for some USDN (~60m USDN)
  • That someone is passing a proposal to limit liquidity withdrawal and push lenders to sell at discount their LP tokens on exchange.
  • that someone potentially make a killing by buying all those LP at discounted price, especially if he is the USDC/USDT borrower…

That is the neutrino contract. And the changes are a direct result of the USDn to waves swap to hold the peg. It worked as intended

The daily withdraw limit should at least be 10K or 20K, 1K is just too small.