I understand both parties, there has been mistakes by Autofarm and there has been things going on with Venus that also require their attention.
But to me, if Venus gets to keep the funds they will be STEALING FROM THE USERS, not from Autofarm. Bugs and mistakes can happen, sometimes hackers exploit it, sometimes happens between protocols. But you can choose to do the right thing and give the fund back to the USERS!
There’s no way that the fee worked as intended, in normal circumstances will never get 11M in 24 hs, so it’s clear that something isn’t worked as designed. Either by incompetence or an honest mistake, the funds went to Venus treasury, but this is USER funds. It will really feel bad to see one of the top protocols of BSC leveraging and fixing their mistakes with people savings.
I just can’t see how you think that’s fair, Venus taking the funds as if you were some low-life hacker!!! Get your s*** together.
A draft proposal is here for discussion and seems lots of ideas (positive or negative, both good) had been brought out. I will definitely support the proposal that user can vote for.
Two strong projects collaboration always gets a better headline in the media than finger pointing each other where it’s the BSC users that get shot after all. We plan money spending on marketing campaign, but i couldn’t think of a better marketing than showing Venus as a big brother carrying the weight of BSC to move together for the whole ECOsystem.
I think a lot of people that are against it are missing the point. Yes, it was Autofarm fault and they should have reacted faster.
But in the end, this is business and nothing else. You treat your partner well and do deals with them that are mutually beneficial.
Imo, there is no way that Autofarm ever works with Venus again if that does not pass. They will just select and push another partner.
Instead of focusing on who did what, let’s focus on how to make money and have the platform grow the best possible.
I vote yes for this proposal
I have been anticipating this proposal for months now. It is more than overdue and I definitely see it as a win-win for both Autofarm & Venus communities.
It is a no brainer that Autofarm’s users who have lost funds will be in favor of this proposal; but more importantly I think it is noteworthy to mention that this is the ethical and rational thing to do.
I really doubt about the legitimacy of the funds generated. They went to Venus treasury due to bad implementation, not to a correct working of the strat.
Never was 1bp that was charged, more like exponential fee due to a strat being not so optimized. But yeah, AF made a mistake, but Venus will do another mistake by taking funds from users since AF is not losing any here, only end-users.
I think you should return to user 99.9% of the funds and keep 0.1% that should have been charged originally if you want something “legit”.
Besides that i think it’s overall a good deal, Venus could get more exposure to the market, AF will have to pay something for the lost yield and BSC as a whole benefit since BSC users will stick around. Im personally using BSC less since this and the may exploit festival. But paying attention carefully to see where this is going, hoping to change my mind.
Good luck with this - as a venus holder from day 1 I wish your platform and users well, I hope in time you recognise your faults which lead to such a loss for your users. I do not support this proposal at all. I know users who have lost significant 7 figure balances of value due to price manipulation and cascading liquidations, yet they do not come with cap in hand blaming venus for their mistakes - they rebuild, grind and learn from their mistakes. I hope you will do the same and be honest with your users and yourselves. As a user who has never used Autofarm you are also introducing significant opportunity costs to your protocol for asking for such ‘repayments’ as it displays significant lack of commercial insight and risk management as a protocol - I will never use autofarm for this reason. Good luck.
Autofarm’s offer only serves its own interests and is not a fair offer. Also, it is clear that some figures are inflated, while autofarm’s tvl is 1 billion dollars, how will it bring an extra 1 billion dollars to Venus platform.
The money in the Venus treasury belongs to all xvs owners. That’s why I don’t accept that all that money is given to autofarm. Moreover, you cannot charge the xvs investor to compensate for the losses caused by this autofarm’s fault. This would not be a fair approach. I would like the new team to evaluate this proposal, taking into account the recommendations of NoOneVII
Dediklerinize katılıyorum yeni bir tasfiyee şoku yaşamamak gerekir.
Aylardır xvs nin çıkmasını bekliyoruz bundan 40 gün önce oldugumuz noktalardayız
Tüm coinler 3x 5x yaptı emsallerimiz spesifik hareketler yapıyorlar
Biz hala bunları tartışıyoruz.
Venüs çok büyük bir proje autofarm tüm kurallara uyacaksa gelsin yoksa uzak dursunlar.
Şimdi yapmamız gereken fiyat hareketi ve xvs yi aylardır ayakta tutan hodler ler yüzü gülmeli
Yeni bir fiyat hareketi olacak ve trader ler aylardır bekleyen hodler gibi kazanacak buna biri dur demeli Z
Xvs yi aylardır tutan ile traderler arasında fark olmalı ekip parabolik çıkışları desteklemeli.
Autofarm yolumuzda ki ufak bir taş fazla önemsemeyelim şartlarımızı kabul edeceklerse buyursunlar yoksa Venüs kimsenin oyuncağı değildir bunu bilsinler
The fees was generated as a consequence of Autofarm not being bothered to update their code despite prior information. There was nothing inefficient or bad implementation, it was pure apathy towards their user’s funds.
Despite all the info, Autofarm allowed their code to run which resulted in legitimate revenue for the protocol.
Thus fees generated was legitimate. The code did what was decided in the governance.
Its pretty straight forward, say a protocol A allows flashloan which leads to exploitation of arbitrage opportunity on protocol B, Should the fees generated by protocol A as a consequence of flashloan be refunded to protocol B? I doubt anyone would agree with that, protocol A will keep its fees.
Anywho, here the responsibility is on Auto to make their users whole. Don’t they have insurance to deal with this sort of thing? Or maybe users should have been more careful whom they entrust their crypto to compound.
And as far as exploit thing is concerned, all chains have are vulnerable to that. Simply refunding the amount won’t solve that problem.
Also, about the TVL thing, most of their value is under LP pair which they compound via pancakeswap, that’s never gonna enter Venus. Its all a big farce to confuse the community!
I really really disagree. Your example of protocol A getting fees for someone else exploiting protocol B is really different of what happened here, since here Venus will be the protocol initiating the exploit in the first place. Will be one protocol exploiting another protocol bad code, if you can sleep well knowing that Venus exploited a bad design, bug or whatever was on the AF contract is on you.
To me looks like one protocol robbing funds from users exploiting another protocol, plain and simple.
And sadly code is not law, even if you wish for it, because code and protocols are written by people, and there are ways to fix mistakes in code that don’t go in on-chain contracts.
I think Auto is responsible to some degree ofc, but the repayment of loss yield, putting vaults, and bringing new fresh traffic, that Venus needs it in order to develop further in the BSC ecosystem is already a good deal. With that closed vision, you are only seeing a very small picture in the whole panorama.
“Also, about the TVL thing, most of their value is under LP pair which they compound via pancakeswap, that’s never gonna enter Venus. Its all a big farce to confuse the community!”
There used to be ~400M in TVL on Venus vault in Autofarm. That’s why the fees account for ~12M.
Right now, there is ~400M in TVL in single vault on Autofarm on the BSC. If Autofarm makes Venus vault more attractive by reducing the fees + giving more auto, where do you think the funds are going to go?
I honestly don’t get that finger-pointing s**t, who cares? This is good business for both platforms.
You digress by blaming Venus. It was not Venus’s fault anywhere. Venus didn’t initiate any exploit!
Venus simply passed an governance proposal. Which from beginning to end takes about 5 days to pass and execute. More than enough time for Auto to have updated their code, or halt it.
If it was a case of locked fund, it should have been refunded no questions asked. Giving legitimate revenue is whole other ball game!
Tell me, should I be refunded my withdrawal fee if I were to claim I missed out on the governance proposal to charge fees? Even if it was measly 100$.
Question is, Why isn’t Auto paying out of their insurance fund?
Apathy and bugs in code are two different things!
You are clearly missing the point. And the fee charged to autofarm users wasn’t 0.1%, due to the way contract was writen people pay up to 25% of their deposits into that fee, so i think claiming for the 24.9% back is more than fair.
I cannot tell if it was apathy, bad design, miscommunications between protocols, whatever, but there fees that were charged to us users that exceeded the 0.1% that was originally set.
Regard the insurance bit, if you read the proposal, AF says they will use their AutoSafu fund as a way to payback user loss yield. Do you even read it?
That’s not the reason fees amount to 12M. Failure to update the code resulted in those fees.
Anwywho, I understand most of you guys are victims of the auto’s fault, and have lost fund.
I just don’t get it why you are not asking Auto to pay you out of their insurance fund.
If that doesn’t make you whole, ask them to diver their protocol’s income towards making you guys whole.
But I don’t see that, I see they still keep on raking on their profits, and have diverted you guys towards venus.
Its hardly finger pointing. Its just matter of fact statements.
If it was good business for auto they should have instituted back their vaults already.
Point of the matter being, Buck stops with the protocol with the fault(code/bugs might exmpted)., but outright no action is simply unforgivable. Especially with one which touts themselves to be biggest yield aggregator on BSC! Its as simple as that.
And, yeah I have read that bit about Autosfau… Why have they not decided to divert their profits to compensate you guys, yet? Have you asked them that yet?
Have you checked how venus deals with losses? Maybe auto can take a hint, and you guys as well with the new tokenomics.
I’m personally against this proposal, at least parts.
I’m all for a collaboration between the 2 projects, frankly I’m surprised autofarm didn’t just update their strategies after they noticed their own inefficiencies to begin with and restart their vaults sooner
However, paying funds from the treasury for a mistake that was very clearly autofarms and autofarms alone, sets a very dangerous precedent moving forward for potential future partnerships/collaborations. By paying millions of dollars to autofarms users for autofarms mistake, we are now giving the greenlight for our other partners to not pay attention to critical updates since we’ll be willing to pay any amount to cover their mistake.
In my opinion, a true partnership forming from this point on would be Autofarm creating new venus vaults for staking, and staying properly up to date with venus, and venus making sure they alert autofarm for anything risks in new proposals.
There are always risks in crypto, every investor knows this (or at least should), getting any form of compensation is generous but requesting a multi million dollar bail out is just wrong. You made a mistake that was 100% avoidable, doesn’t deserve a bailout.
By that logic, venus should be compensated roughly 90m from swipe for Joselitos ignorance, but we all know thats not happening either lol
I see it as if we received a bank transfer with a mistake in the amount. The sender did type in too many zeros 
They had to wait for 6 month for this to come out… and its not even a greenlight. Its up to discussion and it is for us, XVS holder, to decide. If we refuse, we will do harm to some users (and even some of us… we all own more than one BSC token). We can accept it but we need to do it with some counterparties : reasonable ones as we were/are partners.
I don’t see what we would loose with what they propose. Maybe we could add a XVS vault, with high Auto APY, to compensate the small sell pressure we would get if they come back. I read a lot of angry people mainly wanting them to admit their mistakes, which they did in my sense. We are now far from that point, we need to close this topic.
About creating new Venus vaults for staking, as you suggest, I think it would never work if this is not solved. I can’t see any Autofarm user willing to deposit anything if this is not solved peacefully. On the contrary if the partnership is strong it would work.
Another point is that we need both the top lending platform and the top yield optimizer to work together to make the BSC scale up. Otherwise some other chains may take us over (Solana, Avalanche…).
I agree to all
NoOnrVII
I agree with that and we have your back.