Set WAVES/USDN/EURN Liquidation Threshold to 1, Max Borrow APR for all assets to 400

HuYgPQV5s5L8KoWnTAUZ43YjuBJ28nUsypnv9s6LdExF

In order to prevent price manipulation and protect the ecosystem I propose to temporary reduce the liquidation threshold for Waves and USDN borrowing to 0.1%. Also I propose to limit the maximum borrow APR to be 40%.

{
  "type": 12,
  "version": 2,
  "data": [
    {
      "key": "34N9YcEETLWn93qYQ64EsP1x89tSruJU44RrEMSXXEPJ_DPoint",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 400
    },
    {
      "key": "474jTeYx2r2Va35794tCScAXWJG9hU2HcgxzMowaZUnu_DPoint",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 400
    },
    {
      "key": "6XtHjpXbs9RRJP2Sr9GUyVqzACcby9TkThHXnjVC5CDJ_DPoint",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 400
    },
    {
      "key": "8LQW8f7P5d5PZM7GtZEBgaqRPGSzS3DfPuiXrURJ4AJS_DPoint",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 400
    },
    {
      "key": "DUk2YTxhRoAqMJLus4G2b3fR8hMHVh6eiyFx5r29VR6t_DPoint",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 400
    },
    {
      "key": "DG2xFkPdDwKUoBkzGAhQtLpSGzfXLiCYPEzeKH2Ad24p_DPoint",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 400
    },
    {
      "key": "WAVES_DPoint",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 400
    },
    {
      "key": "DG2xFkPdDwKUoBkzGAhQtLpSGzfXLiCYPEzeKH2Ad24p_LiquidationThreshold",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 1
    },
    {
      "key": "DUk2YTxhRoAqMJLus4G2b3fR8hMHVh6eiyFx5r29VR6t_LiquidationThreshold",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 1
    },
    {
      "key": "WAVES_LiquidationThreshold",
      "type": "integer",
      "value": 1
    }
  ],
  "senderPublicKey": "3gQ8QUfoGQW6YVuhUv3zuqsbmxbV5F2FAuDXJqVKD6C9",
  "fee": 100000000,
  "feeAssetId": "WAVES",
  "timestamp": 1649606400000
}
8 Likes

WOW this is interesting! in case the proposal passes, everyone basically has to repay every penny of their loan in WAVES, USDN and EURN within 7 days, otherwise they will be liquidated in full right after the execution?


Say, this guy is alone short of 631k WAVES and has 7 days to buy, otherwise 80m of collateral will be gone.
Altogether its 780k WAVES debt in vires, if they are already sold for short, they’ll have to buy it ASAP.
Given generator stats at https://dev.pywaves.org/generators/ it’s close to 5%(?) of what’s on the market.
The same is true for USDN, which is shorted for 40M, which are also on the clock to be repaid.

Summary: 780k WAVES and 40m USDN are to be bought and repaid within 7 days.

Let’s vote :slightly_smiling_face:

EDIT: pictures added

8 Likes

This is being proposed by an entity with a large long WAVES position to force one account out of a legitimate short WAVES position.
No thanks, I’d rather continue to get 105.44% APY on stables.

16 Likes

So we’re trying to pass a proposal that would instantly liquidate users on a whim? Who would ever use Vires again after this?

14 Likes

I think “No!”. This looks like a proposal to protect one large borrower of usdc/usdt (primarly this one 3PEEsRmcWspCxhKqobvKY3axW1846AMRwzr) and liquidate usdn /eurn/waves borrowers on an instant after activation. This will kill the protocol.

15 Likes

This is a terrible proposal. Just because we don’t like that a party took a big short position doesn’t mean we should change the protocol to target them back. They are using the platform as intended. Just let it play out and enjoy the rewards

17 Likes

Sounds like a good idea to me

2 Likes

Voting no. This proposal goes against the ethos of DeFi, is incredibly petty and is detrimental to the long term credible neutrality of Vires.

18 Likes

This proposal is absolute bullshit and u know it. Just because alameda has a large WAVES borrowed position you can’t fuck over every user who is using your platform legitimaly and also borrowing one of the assets provided.

I can guarantee you this will be the darkest day in Waves history if it passes.

It’s an absolute travesty this was even uttered in a governance forum, to make such an hamful proposal to the protocol that would manipulate price and liquidate thousand of your users willingly.

VOTE NO

17 Likes

This will literally be against all retail investor interest

11 Likes

are you guys doxxed?

please don’t rug all your users

1 Like

YAE. 40% is OK for me with ability to instant withdraw

40% is better as it’s consistent with usual defi rates, 105% only scares people

Absolutely NO!
1- Nobody will use Vires after this move
2- It’s beneficial to the huge USDT/USDC borrower

To be honest I’ve already started to lose trust.

15 Likes

What scares people is not been able to withdraw. And more than 70% of the USDC / USDT liquidity of vires was drained by a single wallet and this proposal only protects the interest of that particulary wallet.

It is a shame for the vires protocol and it would hurt us all hard.

Maybe waves token is under speculative attack but using the liquidity from retail users in vires to leverage a position to defend the token is unfair and would kill the protocol for sure. Also making proposals when most of the governance tokens are still in a few hands would also destroy the newborn DAO .

I DO AGREE to force a margin call (or increase the liquidation threshold) in order to regain equilibrium in the system considering the situation. But I DO NOT AGREE to cap the max borrow APR because I do want that the huge USDT/USDC borrow position against USDN as collateral to be reduced as soon as posible too.

I also would like to propose a limit in the total amount of funds (or percentaje of the pool) that a single account can borrow and a transparency policy to disclouse in the position of the related parties wallets.

I have not enough locked vires to create the proposal nor voting power to push theese ideas. I am a no one here but I am close to lost everything. I can only ask the team to reason and behave with cavaldry. Please fix this mess.

If I am wrong (I could be because I have only partial information) please enlight me and accept my apologies.

20 Likes

And how is Vires responsible to protect the Waves ecosystem?

Vires should be responsible to protect lender’s funds and keep it’s own procotol working as intended only.

Changing the rules “temporarily” will hurt the trust we have in the protocol way more than anything.

I know it’s annoying for users that are afraid that something is wrong with Vires and trying to exit their lending positions, but if that’s the problem just make a post to educate users about this possibility (as it’s already written in the Vires documentation).

Market will correct itself in the long term.

13 Likes

Do I get it right?
If this will be about to pass, people loose trust in vires/waves, start selling, price will dump and the account that borrowed to have a short position gain so they win, then just before deadline they repay and still win ?

Plus this proposal looks like a market manipulation forcing people to get out of their positions on a whim - changing the rules in the middle because we don’t like how the platform is being currently used within its rules seems just wrong…

13 Likes

I have been holding Waves since 2017. I really liked the culture and thought it’s good to have competition for layer 1 protocols.

This isn’t so much of a Legitimate protocol proposal. it is pure manipulation and robbery. If this passes then essentially the ecosystem is destined to die. Hard NO!

16 Likes

BIG NO from me this is not a suitable idea if this occurs not only will it damage the ecosystem but it will reduce trust from members.

13 Likes

I don’t know who proposed this (is there a way to check?) but this is a horrible idea. All it does is prove that the FUDsters are correct, and ruin all trust in the WAVES ecosystem. If you want to protect Waves from those trying to short during this FUD campaign, then we should be making it easy for those supplying WAVES to move their WAVES to protected so they can stop short sellers from borrowing it.

6 Likes