Not sure this Is correct to be honest. We used a feature clearly stating that positions would be “locked, not liquidated” if c-ratio was below 300% and now you are introducing liquidation? Rules cannot be changed in the middle of a game, even if the game was “unfair” to begin with. Not serious at all.
Now, if you want to put in place a system only valid for new minters that could make sense, but honestly otherwise one could argue you could have legal problems (if crypto was regulated, you could not do this for sure)
I agree 100% with this - discouraging minting of the old model fUSD seems fair, but punishing users who have already minted fUSD under the “locked (not liquidated)” conditions by discontinuing the old UX and introducing interest and liquidation modules seems a bit agressive, especially when implemented over a short timeline. The details surrounding the implementation of these modules is also not very clear which makes it hard to make an informed decision.
One further aspect of this proposal that is not particularly clear is the timeline for the whole migration, with the only mentions being “deploy in 2 to 3 weeks” and “terminate fMint UX support in 3 months”.
Users who have used the fWallet to mint fUSD and trade/swap this to FTM for a locked staking delegation (which is a perfectly reasonable use of the tools open to users in the fWallet) may have, in good faith, locked for up to 365 days with a view to paying back the borrowed fUSD once the staking period is over. Any timeline that does not allow these users to finish their staking period + unbonding time and give them time to then retrieve and repay the fUSD is putting them in a difficult situation, which I think should really be avoided in order for this proposal to be fair to both existing and new users.
I also will not be backing this proposal as it stands until there has been further clarification and reassurances on the above matters.
I firmly believe that fUSD will have a lot to benefit under OINDAO - and they always looked very transparent on how their work ( Check their github - Introduction to OINDAO - OINDAO Docs ).
I am not against the fact that a liquidation feature Is added per se, but you cannot implement such a modification for already existing situations when “locked,not liquidated” was clearly stated at the moment of the “trade”.
Again, in the “real world” such a behavior would result in trials, fines and loss of reputation.
Also, I strongly advise against disappointing those users which used these features cause they are typically not scalpers or casuals but long term holders/stakers as myself.
You can build something new while at the same time finding a satisfying solution for past positions. As things stand, I am going to vote NO for sure.
I expect more clarity from the AMA however, cause looking at early results my sentiment is shared.
This Is crypto man. While you have a point in stating that It Is unreasonable as an assumption to be made, even 500% apy Is unreasonable in the real world.
There Is no fault imho in using a feature while abiding to the rules. If anything, this is a case of mismanagement from devs or the foundation, cause users are not the ones which put that feature in place to begin with (and this leads me to think that this matter Is going to be addressed more seriously)
I am all for “loss Is part of the game” as an approach, but I don’t like when the loss depends from a rule changed after the game started.
Hey, I think there’s a misunderstanding on the level of intervention and the main purpose of it.
Just to clarify, by no means we are proposing intervention from the Foundation to ensure “perfect liquidity” is in place i.e. a $1 hard peg in the migration process. As you have also correctly pointed out in the above, doing so will not create the sense of urgency required in the migration process and it fails to solve the root cause of the problem.
As a result, the intervention is only the last resort and will be recommended at the bare minimum. It should be noted that the key purpose of the provision is not to prevent market forces from happening - people should not expect that the Foundation will guarantee $1 peg for repayment. The only purpose of the intervention is to put a backstop to prevent an extreme situation where bad actors are clearly withholding FUSD supplies on purpose, to an extent that it’s more profitable for people to give up on the collateral than to make a repayment i.e. total FUSD debt value > total collateral value.
And to address your previous post - it will not be possible to quantitatively define an acceptable upward volatility, as it will put a false price expectation on the FUSD, and defeats the purpose of the provision and the core workings of market forces. It can only be said that the assessment criteria will be a combination of the FUSD price, the progress of the migration process, and the transaction volumes.
Hey, we are not giving up on ethical standards here. In fact, the intervention provision is set to protect ethical standards. The only purpose of the intervention is to put a backstop to prevent an extreme situation where bad actors are clearly withholding FUSD supplies on purpose, to an extent that it’s more profitable for people to give up on the collateral than to make a repayment i.e. total FUSD debt value > total collateral value. It will be recommended only to the bare minimum, and by no means it’s meant to open up a leeway for price manipulation and prevent market forces from happening.
There was no guarantee at the time of minting, or at the time of trading, that liquidations would never come. You weren’t told this, so ‘“locked,not liquidated” was clearly stated at the moment of the “trade”.’ is false. It’s not stated within the fMint module, and if you are referring to Foundation released documentation, then you also have the communications that state liquidations would be added in future. You were fully informed of this fact, so your point is a weak one to stand on.
It was always communicated that liquidations would come in future, and it’s unreasonable for you to assume anything different, given all other collateralized stablecoins have this feature as well.
Again, if you are worried, fUSD is at $0.70 right now; go and buy some to repay your debt.
Hey sorry, regardless of the eventual outcome of the vote, we have to disagree with you on this here.
The fMint was built-in with a liquidation module, and the community has always been informed that the liquidation module will be activated at some point. So strictly speaking, this is not a ‘rule change after the game started’, because the Foundation has always been transparent about the module’s existence and keeping it as an option, and they have every right to activate it.
In addition, we believe we are all long-term supporters of the Fantom ecosystem, so taking advantage of a clearly flawed system is like taking advantage of a vulnerable person, this cannot be the right thing to do especially when you consciously know that it’s an unfair game to begin with.
It Is literally written on the module, you can check yourself clicking on the i for the c-ratio graph. You can only argue that It Is referred to wFTM but It Is clear to users that everything Is connected (see my first message) and liquidating Will result in an overall loss in some cases, and current fUSD price has nothing to do with It.
For the positions I leveraged I accepted the risk that FTM price going to 0 would have result in a loss for me and also that fUSD not being pegged I could have lost in the fUSD trade back. But, being confident in FTM hitting let’s say 10 USD price in the long term, that loss would have not been so relevant.
Again, I can accept risk and suffer losses, It Is part of the game, but I want everything to be clear and not modified afterwards.
First, if a system Is flawed It Is not a fault of the users. I am in FTM since 2019 and am currently staking a LOT of FTMs so I am for sure a big supporter of FTM.
This problem Is pretty marginal to me from a monetary pow, still, I think that devs or foundation have put the option in place and that this kind of change would not be fair given how the interface Is today and what have been allowed.
You are right in stating that a flawed feature has to be corrected but you should minimize the impact on users, and this doesn’t look like a proper way to do so imho.
Anyway,again, we can agree to disagree and I can vote no, but since you are trying to implement a significant change for FTM ecosystem and as you said we all support FTM I suggest taking this kind of observations seriously because again, this situation Is of interest of users and supporters, not casuals. Maybe you can find some kind of solution which would improve the proposed framework.
And the intention to implement liquidations is literally written on the documentation, and the contract (the final source of all truth).
Liquidations causing loss isn’t really an argument - this is how collateralized stablecoins work. It’s been clearly communicated that liquidations will go live at some stage since fMint launched. The (i) information is still correct. wFTM will be locked, and has been. It doesn’t mention either way whether liquidations are/are not possible in future. For anyone to assume that the system as is constitutes a ‘final product’, and not to question how risk free leverage is possible, and not to look for an explanation is disingenuous - notwithstanding, it’s in the fMint articles anyway, and the contracts.
You can’t say that you accept the risks, and then have FTM at $10 in your base case. ‘This isn’t fair, just wait for FTM $10’ is juvenile. That’s not what accepting the risks looks like. Look at any other DeFi protocol, and you’ll see that there’s no reasonable case to be made that you expected fMint to work like this forever. It’s clearly just the fact that you’re on the wrong side of the trade and are desperately looking for a way to minimize your losses.
It was clear that this was going to happen eventually, it’s been communicated clearly that liquidations would be added in future, which they will. Github activity, initial articles, and community messaging has all reflected this.
Sure, we can agree to disagree; place your vote, but coercive statements insinuating ‘I have a lot of FTM staked, I’m important, you better listen to me or else’ aren’t really productive. Place your vote, let your opinion be known, but trying to pretend you matter more than any other vote isn’t the case.
if u thougt this was all just free money u are high bro why wouldnt everyone be doing it lol. and fusd would be 0 a long time ago with no point to buy it. no offense but its on you homie this is basic common sense stuff jus take the L and learn
Man, honestly I had no intention to sound coercitive at all, It would be absurd on my side and I am perfectly aware that I count as my vote allow, nothing more nothing less. I am not native english speaker so I guess maybe my message sounded differently than intended and my apologies if that’s the case.
My point was stating that I am a long time supporter and this situation interest people like me, not scalpers or such, and I would like my point to be evaluated properly cause supporters are crucial for a project. Now, OIN can still tell that the proposal wouldn’t change, It Is in their right, but I would expect something different like I would expect from any Company I get services/products from. Attention to users matters even if they can conclude that users like me make unjustified points.
Now to the main point, I am not going into a debate with you about what Is juvenile and what Is not, and sure I am on the wrong side of a trade but this Will not be the First Time not the last One, that Is not the point. Point Is fairness, I think you and me disagree on fairness in this case and so no point in arguing. I can assure you that if the change benefits FTM even if I lose this specific trade I would benefit greatly economically, so I am the First hoping for the best solution, It Is Just that this Is not a fair process to me.