VIP-024 Migrate all USDT and USDC > 1M to separate markets

I am okay with sacrificing to not kill the platform and waves in general.

i’m just not okay with sacrificing everything, when other people is making bank on my sacrifice.


After todays discourse Im joining the No but if revenue share goes over 35% then maybe camp

1 Like

This offer will simply kill Vires holders. What will happen after it passes:

  1. gVires APY will drop from 130% to ~20%.
  2. As a consequence, the price of Vires will begin to plummet because:
    a) Vires will cease to be an attractive investment. For the sake of 20% APR, it doesn’t make sense to lock up money for 2 years.
    b) Existing gVires holders will gradually withdraw from the protocol, trying to save something.
  3. When the price of Vires drops to $5-10 - the percentage of gVires will return to ~130%.

In the end, those who bought and locked Vires at $50-100 will be completely screwed. Example:
You bought 100 Vires for $10,000.
Already claimed: $2,000.
Current amount in gVires: $4,000, but you can’t withdraw it. And after the price drops, they will turn into ~$1,000.
It would take more than 7 years to take your money back after the offer is accepted!

But I want to remind you that it was gVires holders who agreed to lower the maximum interest on the loan from 80% to 40%. This was done for the sake of protocol in hopes of solving the problem. Is this the kind of solution we deserve?

If the current proposal is accepted, it would be evidence of manipulation by the team. Because people won’t shoot themselves in the foot. Especially those who have invested heavily in the protocol. I vote against it.


You are thinking about the consequences at the exact moment when the proposal passed, without thinking about the momentum that it is going to cause. Let me try to answer point by point:

  1. gVires APY will drop from 130% to ~20%. Indeed, the APY will drop at the very moment, however this APY is not what you see in the bank, it is not fixed and it is a just a reflection of various parameters that constantly change without your control. It is better to not look at the APY but analyze the root parameters that produce it, which are the landing/borrowing balance and the token price, and these things are out of your control and depend solely on the market conditions and the health of the protocol itself.
  2. As a consequence, the price of Vires will begin to plummet because Vires will cease to be an attractive investment. that is only your guess. Indeed, the dumb investor may look at 20% and think “gosh, what a low income! I will go and invest in some other place where the percentage is far higher”, on a bearish market, yeah… The smart investor may read the docs, understand that this percentage is actually a reflection of various parameters, understand that it is very dynamic what really matters is actually the health of the protocol and the landing/borrowing balance, and act accordingly. Idk what is better for the protocol – attract dumb investors or smart investors, probably both at some proportion, which means the protocol already attracted many dumb ones, it is time to attract the smart ones.
  3. because existing gVires holders will gradually withdraw from the protocol, trying to save something, again, that is your assumption which is based on your understanding of how people will act. But you don’t know how they will act. There are people who think that the proposal is what is necessary for the health of the protocol because it helps to overcome the liquidity crisis during on the bearish market, the others will think “well, this is it, i expected to constantly earn 150% from my investments $100 per token, I quit”. Ones will start to sell the token, others will start to buy them, and nobody knows what will be the balance.
  4. When the price of Vires drops to $5-10 - the percentage of gVires will return to ~130%., yes, you caught it right, but who said that this is a bad thing in the long run? those who trust in the protocol will buy these cheap tokens, others won’t, you dont know what will happen and the token price is a reflection of a market conditions, this proposal definitely may affect it in some way, but you dont know how exactly. For example, I see that the proposal may actually help the protocol in the long run and help Sasha to pay the debt at the very moment while the team is working on other solutions that Sasha announced (like USDN price using oracle). These things need to be developed, tested, tested again, modeled, etc. etc., and while the team is working on that Sasha need to repay to keep the existing suppliers and holders to earn at least something and ably to withdraw at least something.

In essence, i dont see the price of the vires token drop that low just because there are people who want to buy them (i, for example), also with the prcie of $10 it will be much more affordable to buy 1000 tokens and create your own proposals, which is nice, and since this proposal doesnt increase that amount significantly for me it sounds like a clear indicator that the team doesnt expect the price of the token to drop that low.

Thank you for your reply, art_artemev. Indeed, for the most part, my calculations are based on my assumptions. But, they are not unfounded, and here is why:

  1. The proposal does not solve the underlying problem of the protocol. Although we would expect a solution after reducing the maximum percentage from 80 to 40.
  2. 130% and 20% have the same risks in this case. And smart investors assess risk first.

For gVires owners, the current proposal forms a big risk that could result in losing 80% of the deposit. You correctly noted, we don’t know how the price will behave. But we have to consider best-case and worst-case scenarios. Let’s estimate the cost of the trade-off in this matter:

~ 371,582 gVires we have now.
~ $15,000,000 is their current value ($40 for 1 Vires)

How many gVires holders don’t want to take on the new risk? Let’s assume 50% (probably less in reality).
Total: $7,500,000.

Considering that the maximum percentage was lowered from 80 to 40, and will now be lowered even more, that’s a very small amount. Plus, they won’t have to pay any interest later on. So let gVires holders have a choice! Withdraw now with a 10-20% loss or wait for better times for the Vires Protocol.


I really don’t like being talked down to, so let me respond in kind.

  1. This is all fine… IF you didn’t just hustle people into locking their token for up to a year, with the promise of APY. That was something you yourself made happen, and now we’re just supposed to be happy that you propose to kill our APY afterwards, and we’re wrong for considering APY as a factor? And don’t give me that “if you had your money in the bank” bullshit. I didn’t put my money in the bank, I put my money on your shitty platform at 100% util. expecting 100% util to pay as promised. And now my money is stuck, while you want to remove the 100% util payout.

  2. Lol. just lol. Really, it’s just a guess, that vires price will go down with APY? Like we didn’t just see it happen from 150 to 50$, when APY was 250% at 150?

  3. What a joke reply. You’re talking to damn investors who’d be selling. you arrogant…

  4. EVERYONE who bought at 100 - 150$ for 150 - 250% APY, says it’s bad that price drops to 5$ when it means payout dropped from ~200 per gvires a year, to measly ~5$ a year… Every single one thinks that’s a bad thing…

What a joke reply.


Always pleased to follow a healthy conversation :slight_smile:

Answering your key points:

  1. The proposal does not solve the underlying problem of the protocol. It would be great to fix (for proper discussion purposes) what kind of problem you are referring to because I think the point of view may be different depending on the exact problem formulation. I assume that the problem is the liquidity drain of USTD/C markets and as a result disabled borrowing. From the moment when these problems arise, the team indeed lowered the maximum percentage, just like you said, and that was the first step. At that time it was also not obvious how that move would help the protocol because it seemed like it is not going to solve the problem. After that, the team made a series of proposals (adaptive limits, deposit locking, debt assumption by Sasha, maybe something else that I forgot) that indeed helped to partly deal with the situation (i can claim my vires rewards every day without any problem, I can withdraw my very modest supply without any problem), and now it is clear to me that the first proposal that lowered the percentage was just to win some time to work on the actual solution. Apparently, the time won is not enough and now the team needs to win a little more time to finish working on other proposals that would help the protocol
  2. 130% and 20% have the same risks in this case. And smart investors assess risk first.. Unfortunately, I didn’t fully understand the risks you are talking about, and i don’t understand how the proposal may result in losing 80% of the deposits. Most of the locked Vires are unlocked only in 8 months. If the vires holders decide that they want to quit now they will be quitting in the next 8 months. During that time I’m sure the team will make new proposals aimed at actually stabilizing and fixing the situation and making the protocol healthier, which will increase the token value and other investors will be buying these tokens that those who lost the trust started to sell. That is the other reason why i don’t see the vires price dropping that much, in addition to the fact that they are not rising the proposal creation limit.

It would be interesting to calculate though how much gVires can be unclocked daily and how much (in best and worst case scenarios) will be loaded to the DEX daily, that would indeed give a piece of valuable information regarding the risks. I checked data from the smart contract and calculated the daily unclock using the following code:

const response = await fetch('')
const data = await response.json()
const unlockedDaily = data.filter(x => x.key.endsWith('_vires')).map(x => (x.value / 100000000) - ((x.value / 100000000) * Math.exp(-(Math.log(2)/180/1440)*(1440)))).reduce((acc, x) => acc + x, 0)

Which resulted in around 1500 vires unclocked every day from 5646 accounts. There are accounts with huge amount of vires which have a ton of vires unlocked every day, and there are small ones. To give you a better picture, from these 1500 unlocked every day, if we take TOP N from the “unlockedDaily” sorted in reverse order, then we will get:

I may guess that TOP 10 or even TOP 20 are accounted of the team, so we have 840 vires unlocked every day. Now it is up to you to decide how many will decide to sell their tokens every day if the proposal will pass. I have absolutely no idea which percentage will decide to do so, but we may take 10%, which is 84 vires. Sounds like not a lot but it may definitely put pressure on the vires price, but i dont think too much,

Too many Pointless bullshits.
By accepting this proposal, we can resolve liquidity squeeze in USDT USDC so fast without any losses of smaller depositers.
Whale can be killed, it contains Alameda who deposited 90M $ to brake USDN.
Let’s kill fudders.

I didn’t want to reply to this proposal as this protocol seems so corrupted that it’s pointless.

But I’ll just say this, markets are bad, people have lost money in many other Defi projects. It’s normal that eventually Vires value will drop just like the market.

On another point…

If you can’t see how unethical it is to create a way to lock people’s deposit, then destroy the APR, you don’t need a finance or coding class. You need an ethic class.

When you make a decision always ask yourself: if people knew who I was and I could be held accountable, would I be in trouble in real life for my decision? If the answer if yes then I shouldn’t have to explain further.

So far instead of saving the protocol most proposals protect huge accounts, protect a failed stable coin and attack directly those who provided liquidity to the protocol in the first place.


As you said earlier, we don’t know how the price will behave. But it’s more honest to say, "we don’t know how much the price will fall. That risk falls entirely on the holders of gVires. No one is taking more risk now than gVires holders!

I want to leave comments here that I sent to the Vires.Finance chat. In particular, I want to respond to some of the user comments.

  1. “Whoever took Vires at a high price was taking the risks.”
    This statement is correct. But you can not deny the fact that the current problem is a consequence of Sasha Ivanov’s actions. For no one else but him could have pawned so much USDN.

  2. “The owners of gVires think only about their interest, and they don’t care about the life of the project.”
    This is not true. We sacrificed yield when we voted to reduce the maximum interest rate from 80% to 40%. And we would have accepted that offer if there was no risk of losing 80-90% of our investment. And there is!

We want the project to live! But we don’t want to die ourselves for the project!

  1. “This decision is the only way out of this situation.”
    I do not know. Maybe it’s not a bad step, which has the right to life and in the long run things will really get better.

Now the big question:
Can we make sure that we don’t trample on those people who trusted the project the most? Is it possible to accept this proposal with less blood? Obviously, it can.

There is no doubt that the price of Vires will fall substantially after the pro-poseal is adopted. I’ve already explained why I think so and there’s no denying that possibility!

We need to give gVires owners a choice: Take a ~20% loss after selling Vires right now or wait for a better time for Vires. In my opinion, it’s a choice between a 20% loss and an 80% loss. But I guess there are people with different opinions.

Every two weeks, Sasha Ivanov pays 7.5M in interest. This amount should be quite enough not to kill the owners of gVires!

It is worth noting that this decision will not have negative consequences for people who have usdt/usdc deposits on Vires. On the contrary! It’s faster acceptance of the current propoozal, faster resolution of problems, it’s user loyalty, it’s an increase in trust in the project. We need to think and act in this direction. Even those users who can get out at the current (fair) prices - they will come back if you don’t wipe your feet on them.

How to do this?
If one considers this suggestion necessary - one can do the following:

  1. Take a snapshot of those who voted against it (address and amount).
  2. weed out addresses where lock vires are committed during the voting period.
  3. Make an unlock on the addresses in proportion to the amount of the vote.
  4. Make a smart contract through which unlocked vires can be exchanged for usdn at a price of $40.
  5. Run the voting again.

That way whoever wants out will get out. This will not cause the price of Vires to collapse (since the exchange will be done through a sk). And these people will not interfere with a new vote in any way (for there is nothing to participate). And who decides to go back - probably will smooth out a little fall of Vires due to fall of yield.

Let’s not guess whether gVires holders will die or not. Let’s make it possible to make a choice!

UPD: If you fear the pressure on the USDN rate - you can provide a period of unlocking funds from the early sale of gVires. Also, we can discuss the possibility of exchanging for other tokens, for example eurn, waves, pluto, etc.


The issue is that Vires and gVires and not losing value because of natural market forces; they are losing value because everything is centralized around doing what Sasha wants. People are afraid to buy Vires even at 130% APY because of situations like this one: at any time Sasha can come up with a new proposal that wrecks the token, and people are locked into their tokens, so they just have to accept it.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

You can’t use the stalemate of the gvires holders to make any change without giving those who want to exit the project at current prices, especially in a case like now where the risks are very high. And other users too. Why hopeless? It takes 2 years to fully, 100% unlock gvires. If the team and other users are so confident in the need for voting, in its positive impact on the situation, why don’t they give the holders of gvires the opportunity to leave the project ahead of schedule? After all, from their words - there is no danger. Here lies the contradiction. It must be allowed. I vote against.


Another proposal to rob the regular vires user. When will Sasha learn that bs like this is exactly the reason the situation doesn’t resolved. Again and again the waves team proves to be untrustworthy


Who is to blame for the fact that Vires.Finance is in crisis? Gvires holders?

1 Like

gVires is a governance token. How do you want to make changes to the protocol without the consent of the gVires holders?


You seem smart, why not buying Vires, lock them for 2 years and vote ?

1 Like

Kind of think Sasha might be annoyed with the Vires team. Bailed the team out and after almost 3 months they just can’t stop making proposals prioritizing whales/themselves. Perhaps vires needs a new DAO or maybe no DAO at all.
What do you think about just clearing the dead whale and re-establishing pre-April parameters? All of these measures were supposed to be temporary.


You don’t know any information about this proposal.
Too XXXX to vote.

If you clearly know about this situation , protocol and finance, your emotion won’t be out for this place…

1 Like

Some shills on Telegram have been suggesting to distribute (steal) the unlocked Vires tokens from the 3PEE account as compensation. This idea would result in each current Vires token being worth about 73% of its current value—exactly why gVires owners are voting against this proposal! No one wants this. We have been very clear about what is proper compensation: INCREASED PROTOCOL SHARE. It is currently 10% for every market, and it needs to be higher to get gVires owners to agree to this proposal.