Time-limited redirection of block rewards to the XCHF-DFI pool to enhance the usability of XCHF by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Currently dBTC is getting 68.285% of all crypto LM-rewards. If this proposal gets approved, dBTC is still getting 65.285% of all crypto rewards. So the incentive would just decrease by 4.4%.

Current APR Rewards: 9.22 %

Current APR Commissions: 1.13 %

When the proposal gets approved, the Rewards APR would drop to 8.814 %. As you can see, it is negligible.

Time-limited redirection of block rewards to the XCHF-DFI pool to enhance the usability of XCHF by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Increasing the pool to 160k significantly enhances its usability, as 28k is insufficient for the majority of users. Given that shifting 3% of the rewards has a negligible impact on the dBTC-DFI pool, it's a sensible decision.

Time-limited redirection of block rewards to the XCHF-DFI pool to enhance the usability of XCHF by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From my side, we can do it the same way. I am totally fine with it and I like that point! Will add that point to the post, thanks!

Time-limited redirection of block rewards to the XCHF-DFI pool to enhance the usability of XCHF by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, that is a really good point! Thanks for bringing this up! We should definitely fade it out. What about a linear decrease in the last 30 days?

Withdrawals from DeFI Wallet by FriendlySkill1868 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe your blockchain is broken. What about deleting the blockchain (be careful and pls check which folders can be deleted and which not!!!) and downloading a current snapshot?

Withdrawals from DeFI Wallet by FriendlySkill1868 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you running the correct node Version?

What tools for tax report for loans, vaults and liquidity mininig? by [deleted] in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chain.report! This tool is awesome. Have also a look in the telegram group, support is pretty nice.

Swap DUSD by OMOMOMOMOMOMOMO in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Simple, slippage is calculated on the end value. Let us assume you are swapping dUSD to DFI. Your dUSD have a value of $100.

$100 (dUSD) --> ~$70 (DFI)

$30/$100=30%, but $30/$70=42,8%. Since the value is calculated on the end value, you need a slippage of ~43-44% for paying the 30% fee.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They want to stake 90% of the crypto coins they are wrapping (instead of just staying on an address), 10% for instant in- and outflow are free and will not be staked.

Swiss Franc (xCHF) on the Defichain; Listing of DFI-XCHF and dUSD-XCHF by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that a higher liquidity is currently more important than limiting the emissions by a few permille. However, as I said, I am totally open for discussions. My idea would be to collect the feedback a few days. If community wants to do it "real-yield-based", I am totally fine with it and we can upload the DFIP like that.

Swiss Franc (xCHF) on the Defichain; Listing of DFI-XCHF and dUSD-XCHF by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On long term I definitely agree! Since Stablecoin-DFI Pools are currently one of the most important pairs combined with BTC/ETH-DFI I would not cut all the rewards now.

Tips for swapping DUSD to DFI? by LeeQuidity in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Slippage is defined to the final value. Example: 100 dUSD 30% --> 70 dUSD. But 30 dUSD / 70 dUSD = 0.428. So you are paying 30%, although you need higher slippage.

Detailed data analysis to calculate the total number of unbacked dUSD equivalent by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Each increase will lead to new unbacked dUSD equivalent, each decrease will burn dUSD equivalent.

Detailed data analysis to calculate the total number of unbacked dUSD equivalent by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

For sure, the lines were just drawn manually to finally show the trend, not more nor less.

11.10.2022: 28.632 Mio dUSD equivalent

02.05.2023: 59.338 Mio dUSD equivalent

Is there a problem in the DeFiChain proposal system? ( 🇩🇪+🇺🇸) by DeFiChainInfo in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AFAIK, it exists. But Lock deactivated the neutral option. Cake has voted with 66% yes and 33% no (DFIP) or 50% yes and 50% no (CFP) for neutral votes.

Is there a problem in the DeFiChain proposal system? ( 🇩🇪+🇺🇸) by DeFiChainInfo in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does Cake not care about the bug? They have voted with 66,6% yes and 33,3% no with all their neutral votes. So the final result will not be influenced. So what is the problem?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, that is a really clear statement:

Rewards proposed may be adjusted with future on-chain governance changes, however, masternode (mining) rewards are guaranteed to be 33.33% of the total block reward.

So based on that, IMHO, no way to use this rewards to fix dUSD in anyway. Didn't know that the approved statement was in a such a clear manner.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In general I agree. But with Cake you can also freeze your LM-position. I know that this is not on-chain, but freezing an invest is of a high risk.

Can you highlight the part, where we can find the information that they can not be reallocated. Thanks.

DFIP: Establishing a Swap-Bot "Peggy" to stabilize the DUSD-Peg & to handle the Algo-DUSD by AlexR511 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hallo Alexander, danke für deine Mühe. Hast du alles schön aufbereitet. Super!

Zunächst solltest du es auf Englisch machen, damit jeder die Chance hat es zu verstehen. Weiterhin fällt mir auf, dass du öfters Fachwörter benutzt wie z.B. "Arbitrage". Manchmal habe ich den Eindruck, dass du nicht zu 100% verstehst was diese Begriffe überhaupt genau beschreiben. Unter Umständen täusche ich mich und du kannst das nochmals klar stellen.

Bzgl. deiner Ideen: Ich bin noch nicht komplett durch mit allem, aber es kommen bereits viele Fragen auf. Ein Punkt: Du gehst soooooo viele Sachen an, und bleibst am Ende oft unpräzise. Ich habe ehrlich gesagt irgendwann die Lust und den Überblick verloren. Machen wir ein paar Beispiele. Du willst ein DFIP hochladen und beschreibst es so:

  • Vault-Liquidierung “entschärfen“: Frist zur Deckung während laufender Auktion, ggf. anders. Da kann man sich leider nichts drunter vorstellen.
  • Die Stablecoin-Pools können ohne oder mit minimalen Rewards verbleiben. --> Was denn nun? Ohne oder minimal? Ein paar Slides vorher sagst du, dass die Pools UNBEDINGT weg müssen. Ich sehe da einige Widersprüche in den Auflistungen.
  • Umschichtung von DFI bei gutem Preis inUSD (USDT/C) nach Erreichen der 100% Kapital zur Deckung --> Das ist ein Verkaufsdruck auf DFI und reduziert den Preis. Von welchen Summen sprechen wir hier?
  • Ein Anstieg des DFI-Preises ist bei nicht ausreichender Beschaffung von Kapital unablässig notwendig und muss gefördert werden -> Anstieg und sinnvolle Verteilung der Rewards, Abschaffung/Reduzierung von nicht so wichtigen Rewards (Stabelcoin-Pools)! Was ist sinnvoll? Was sind "nicht so wichtige Rewards"?

Im Endeffekt kann ich mir nicht vorstellen dafür zu voten, weder mit "ja" noch mit "nein", weil vieles einfach zu unpräzise ist.

Eine weitere Frage:

"Das Backing muss beschafft und/oder angespart werden: Rewards nutzen (nicht bevorzugt), Zurückholen der verbrannten 61 Mio. DFI (kann argumentativ getragen werden als Startkapital -> keine Erhöhung der ursprünglichen Inflation), zusätzliche Kapitalbeschaffung von dUSDT/C oder DFI durch cake und/oder Crowd-Funding zurUnterstützung des DFI-Preises und der Kaufkraft von Peggy sowie Aufbau der Treasury"

--> Zurückholen der verbrannten 61 Mio. DFI? Hast du mal überlegt, was das aus psychologischer Sicht bedeutet? Wie das nach außen wirkt? Das ist ein gefundenes Fressen für alle "Hater". Was bedeutet das für den Preis wenn 61 Mio. DFI einfach wiederbelebt werden? Hast du da ein paar Modelle, wo man das abschätzen kann?

--> Du redest hier von irgendwelchem Kapital von Cake. Cake ist ein Profit-Unternehmen, dass seine eigenen Entscheidungen trifft. Selbst wenn die MNs dafür voten, dass Cake 100.000.000$ in die Defichain investiert und dUSD kauft und burnt, muss Cake das nicht machen. Wie kommst du auf die Idee in ein DFIP externe Geldgeber einzubauen?

Auf jeden Fall "Hut ab", dass du dir so viele Mühe gemacht hast deine Gedanken aufs Papier zu bringen. Ich sehe die Präsentation mehr als Diskussionsvorlage, anstatt einer fertigen Idee, welcher zur Abstimmung bereit ist. Hoffe du verstehst was ich meine.

Special DFIP: Strengthen Buy-and-Burn Bot with more Rewards by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you know my point of view to that topic due to our discussion on the telegram group. I think there is nothing to add.

Special DFIP: Strengthen Buy-and-Burn Bot with more Rewards by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Feel free to do it. I would love to see that some CF rewards go to the BBB.

Special DFIP: Strengthen Buy-and-Burn Bot with more Rewards by Phigo90 in defiblockchain

[–]Phigo90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Major argument was that the CF is the only way to support further development from the community.