Honestly not interested in answering this kind of message. I answered above to some proper critics to my position and I like exchanging opinions. Your message Is not adding anything to the discussion apart from your “you are High” , “take the loss and learn” stuff and such, so feel free to think whatever you like.
100% agree with @Luke here. I voted NO. When i minted fUSD, all i had in my knowledge is that “my staked FTM will be locked until i repay fUSD and that is the maximum risk i was taking”. I took that risk only because i am a long term believer in fantom and ready to keep the fantom staked forever. It was clearly stated in fMint page (during the minting moment) that the “sFTM will be locked and not liquidated”. I can’t possibly imagine at that point that the foundation would surprisingly start liquidating my position. One cannot expect any new users who staked in native wallet and stumbled upon this fMINT feature that states positions will not be liquidated, to read between the lines in docs website or investigate discussion from 3 years back about the liquidity module activation. It should have been made clear during the moment of minting in the fMINT page or else it is “change in rules of game”.
Stopping any new minting sounds good idea as a starting point to get rid of the old system, but a sudden introduction of liquidation in existing positions is terrible.
“ consciously know that it’s an unfair game to begin with.” . I never consciously knew that its an unfair game when i minted - i was actually proud to be locking my staked positions forever as a fantom believer for long term. Assuming average users to know all the internal details about the fMINT system is absurd. “Your positions will be locked but not liquidated” in fMINT page is clearly misleading and may be should have included that “u r playing unfair game”… i would have probably stayed away.
My vote is NO until existing under-collateral fUSD positions are treated fairly.
Your logic is totally absurd. They allowed non-liquidation minting for years and hence trade below $1. But the proposed changes to old system has strict timeframe (3 weeks / 3 months). Years of under peg could easily cause a unhealthy spike during this 3 months of rapid liquidation timeframe.
Change that “ 3 months window “ for existing fUSD position into “ multiple years “ to allow repaying the debt. Then you would have normal market forces operating without any external monitoring.
absolute clown
Oh yeah. Says the genius. Just shut ur piehole and cast ur vote. No point in thinking that u know it all and above everyone and using derogtary terms.
derogatory*
Spot the guy underwater on his trade thinking riskless leverage is sustainable.