VIP-026 (or 24.3) Optional vested conversion to USDN for > 250k


Former proposal offers > 1M supplier’s 2.5% APY


1 Like

In this proposal, whale can sell so many USDN, this is serious. Simple linear vesting leads to crush USDN market.

And this proposal makes whale a vail out much more easier.

I’ve explained before that a reset on this scale is necessary.

Gvires stakers should realize that the large debt has to be repaid, and that means their apy will drop in any scenario.

Gvires stakers should also realize that these changes will foster in a new era of growth for the platform. Sothat in the long run their vires holdings can increase in value again.

I fully support this proposal

1 Like

Whose big debt? And at whose expense should it be repaid and why?

If the proposal is rejected, could you please suggest VIP-024 again?
I voted in favor of VIP-024, but many people would approve it now that an even worse proposal has been made.

  • Sasha’s debt

  • At the expense of large suppliers’ high apr

  • because it increases the probability of everyone getting their money back, including the large suppliers; Sasha’s repayments become more manageable, Vires can continue to function. Gvires holders will yield more in the future, Usdn has a higher chance of keeping peg

Most arguments I used to defend vip-24 apply here as well. Why VIP-024 should have passed

1 Like

Why should large suppliers pay off Sasha’s debt?

Seems like most people are now only upset with the gVires part of this proposal. I can totally understand why, especially due to the extreme price drop (although a lot of that has to do with the current market conditions) as well as the decrease in the pay outs. Regardless, I believe that when investing in DeFi platforms using their token (i.e. gVires), there should be a reasonable long term approach, since bull/bear markets come and go. With that said, there is obviously a possible too long of a term in sight for gVires holders (I myself included) to recoup their investment, much less make any money. However, a much more concerning issue is the supplied stables (USDC/T) and the current lack of liquidity. The idea of converting every balance above $250k to USDN, regardless of a vesting period, in my opinion, will significantly unpeg USDN for a very very very long time. However, this proposal seems reasonable with the second option to not convert. That way only some will convert (to get the 5% bonus) while others will be okay with the long term (not getting an APY on amounts over $250K, but be able to get to their full funds eventually) vesting period. Sounds to me like this is the most reasonable of all proposals submitted recently with the EXCEPTION of the immediate and possibly long term impact to the gVires holders. I suggest that a change to the proposal take place where some sort of bonus like the 5% (however in the case of gVires, due to its volatility much higher %) be offered to gVires holders, obviously with a linear vesting period (similar to the early bird bonus). Additionally, higher bonus %s paid in Vires (also in linear vesting) if they so choose to lock those tokens without access for certain periods of time (i.e. the current options for supplied assets: 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, etc…). That way, gVires holders can immediately recoup some of their investments (in Vires) while also supporting the ecosystem in the long term (due to vesting). Just my 2 cents… I love Vires, and can see that many things were not thought out thoroughly initially, however, I’m sure I wouldn’t have done so much better, and throughout this whole “liquidity squeeze” I haven’t heard many comments of people suggesting much better solutions either.

If you want to vote against, don’t vote. Do not give a quorum.

Large suppliers won’t pay off Sasha’s debt. They’ll just receive their usdt/c back at no further interest or concrete timeline (other then asap). Or usdn with 5% bonus vested over one year.

In other words, Sasha’s debt will be repaid due to the fact that large suppliers do not receive their income? Who are you trying to fool here? Myself?

1 Like

I’d give a straight YES to this one if the two months stability was to be clarified better.

This is a bit fuzzy. If it means that, absolute $ income per Vires is more or less locked where it is today, I would find it represents fair play. But if the APR is locked to Vires market price, we don’t know where this will go and it is possible it will mean anything including near to zero. I sense a good intention behind this clause and therefore would expect that $$ per Vires income would be locked for two months, but it is not clear. Also in case you intend and manage to keep VIRES price stable for two months, $$ income stays stable in that time frame.

So team, if you give the right explanation, it is a YES from here.

Now regarding to all the complaints I’ve read in the thread so far, dear naysayers, as long as your argumentation is so uninformed, irrational, weak and short sighted, its only value is to raise the question where the hell it comes from, as it sounds like genuine FUD spread by the textbook, recognizable immediately by the lack of any serious counter-proposal or even any abstract but nevertheless constructive ideas. They did not come up to now and will not come from people who do not care.

So, let’s explain things a bit better and go for it. Two months stable income will allow gVires holders to readjust a good portion of their investment, be safe from a total loss and take good advantage of cheap Waves and Vires in case their price becomes super attractive.

[I am by no means affiliated to WAVES, just a normal long term investor and trader with some market experience.]

1 Like

I’ll vote to destroy this platform. you can shove your condescending shit up somewhere-. <3

1 Like

You have less than 1000 Vires so who cares what you do? Leave please

The silver lining if this proposal passes (which it looks like that is Sasha’s plan, he has the votes, and you can’t change it) is you would be able to take your daily withdrawal of ~$1k and buy >1k of Vires token (at sub dollar value per token…) to put forth proposals to reverse all the prior past proposals.

1 Like

Again, a YES has the advantage if gVires retain their good yield for two months at current price. Who doesn’t need to borrow (even if only a sane amount) stables, at lucrative conditions, in a rising crypto market?

1 Like

Well yeh. That’s the intention of the strategy right? Of both vip 24 and vip 26…Reduce the amount of interest that needs to be paid while keeping vires functioning. Aiming to make investors whole and offer an attractive investment vehicle.

Paying of the debt at the high interest rates wasn’t possible. This is a strategy that makes the task of repaying everyone more manageable. It’s not rocket science to get it… unless you’re really dense ofcourse…

We all get that it’s not perfect. There are trade offs obviously. And it won’t make everybody happy. No one is denying that. But try and grasp the reality of the situation we’re in. It is a necessary evil. Unless you have a better idea on how the team can realistically cough up 520M while paying 600k of interest on that per day ofcourse… the floor is yours…


Paying of the debt at the high interest rates wasn’t possible. This is a strategy that makes the task of repaying everyone more manageable.

This was done a long time ago. Interest was halved against all suppliers: 40% APR max.
Two times voted, because first time was rejected. Same that this proposal.

Taking measures to liquidate the debt (even if they were partial liquidations and in a time) was avoided because it is about the damn USDN, now the debt is a monster.


A clear cut YES is evolving. Still undecided voters, it is time to invest some time do your proper research, ignore all crap, and give a (hopefully YES) hand to get us all out of the shallows. Greed not getting us anywhere.

[I’m not affiliated to WAVES in any way. Just a normal investor]

1 Like

There’s something else I don’t understand. If it’s hard for Sasha to pay interest on the debt, as he himself said, why not just reduce them and that’s it?