Venezuela Argentina India coin (VAI)

I agree we need a stability fee which was why I was questioning why we removed the mint fee. The guy posting the weekly updates said we had a massive amount of community support for the removal… we had no discussion or support that I saw.

The guy dumping Vai might be a technical trader using stop loss. the coin no longer appears stable.

It’s very equivalent of having a borrow rate on VAI, like we have on other coin. And the further the VAI price is to its peg, the higher is the borrow rate.
Once the price is stable to 1.00 so the fee is zero.
And once the coin is widespread, the native vault yield gets down to zero too, and the coin become all free floating, like DAI.
In the early days of DAI, yes minting DAI had a rate (not one-shot mint fee like VAI had, a negative continuous rate) and you could stake DAI on Maker for a reward. Now DAI is mature and both rates (fee and reward) are zero if I remember correctly.

Not to be confused with insensitived stablecoins like Basis.cash and bDollar.
They do almost the same, but since the coin is not collateralized, when the price drops, nobody wants to buy it at a discount to repay his loan, as they had no loan. And the price always goes to zero. It’s currently 0.04 for both.

This is why I don’t get how an overcollateralized coin like VAI can go so far under peg.

@Fat: the mint fee is different, it had zero impact on price, because again price is in the hands of the traders and swappers, not minter and/or stakers.
Since the fee went to the treasury (not burned) it didn’t create a buy pressure. And as the devs never sold, neither a sell pressure.

However I grant you to have supported the mint fee (as I did silently) and to have been the only one to express it. I liked the mint fee because it was at least a fee on VAI (better an mint fee than nothing) and it prevented whales to drop millions in the Vault as what happened recently.

2 Likes

The guy dumping Vai might be a technical trader using stop loss. the coin no longer appears stable.

Good point, he’s selling 250K VAI with 12500 ever 25 minutes. And he still has 170K. This is the pattern of an experienced trader who waits for the market to absorb his market impact between every trade.
If we’re right, VAI should go down to 0.76 by the end of day, and he’s betting on the huge difference between buyers and sellers on Binance CEX (1.8M against 278K), while on Pancakeswap both are always equals (the xy=k principle from Uniswap and clones).
It means he can smoothly kill the price on Pancake and buy back better on Binance.

I wish I could follow him but i’m out of USD. I’d be surprised to see such an advanced arbitrage on VAI, but… I guess other coins are already arbitraged so he chose a niche. We’ll see.

Update: He may not be that an aggresive trader, but rather a disappointed Pancake liquidity provider. Today is when Pancake killed the yield of the VAI-BUSD pair (rewards divided by 5). And he may simply want to quit his VAI position to invest his money elsewhere.

We, VAI holders, are used to the current low APY and we look at the price of VAI more that the yield. But it’s not true for Pancake flippers.

I’m wondering what will happen then. Will they go to Biswap or Pantherswap?

Update: and yet another big sell for 117K VAI
what’s going on? Panic sell or they know something?

2 Likes

Another interesting finding.
@Jmn Good question :wink:

I don’t have a clue. I would not think that there actually is “something” to know.
Perhaps just guys no longer trusting that this situation can be fixed?

No, firstly liqudators mint and repay vai liqudations
Secondly mint&stakers just lower the vai apy ( mint fee means less minter&stakers )
Thirdly, it removes vai from circulation same as burning since treasury not gonna sell any vai
Cheers

mint&stakers just lower the vai apy

Correct, I said they were agnostic to the VAI price, not to VAI yield.

same as burning since treasury not gonna sell any vai

Assuming treasury will never ever sell or stake any VAI, so yes that’s like burn. I’d have preferred a real burn to address 0 but that’s it.

liqudators mint and repay vai liqudations

I previously gave an example of VAI liquidation were the VAI was bought on Pancake. Do you have a tx example of liquidator who minted VAI? It would be interesting.

just asking about your first statement:
“lliquidators mint and repay vai liquidations”

wouldn’t this be highly impractical?

If you have BTC as collat and you mint VAI to liquidate a position that needs you to pay back those minted VAI, then you have whatever collateral that you could seize during this transaction but no VAI to pay back.
So you would have to sell the collat (what you would of course do) and exchange part of it to VAI in order to be able to repay the minted vai?

Sounds time consumptioning in an environment where split seconds count…

Until today I was thinking that buying VAI and other coins you would want to have at hand for your liquidation bot and let it run would be the best thing to do, I may be wrong

Liquidators could either mint vai or buy vai to pay back the debt. They don’t have to acquire VAI by minting. It makes more sense to buy at current prices as their not locking up capital.

2 Likes

Agree. And that’s how actual liquidation happened so far.

2 Likes

1- vai yield determines vai price, thats why vai was 1$ while vai staking apy was %40-50
( more yield = more buyers, also acryptos use yields to buyback more vai )

3-I remember from past, not able to send proof or find it, probably most liqudators market buy .

So team must
Lower vai collectral ASAP
Give more xvs emission to vai ASAP
Add mint fee to vai ASAP
Until they code the curve interest

After they coded interest, they can remove xvs emissions ( cause vai staker will earn the apy that paid my vai minters ) and they can make higher collectral factor, they can also remove mint fee

People are waiting for 1 year and if team is legit they must do that
They can do that for xvs, why they can’t do for vai?
Or devs just minted and sold vai???

1 Like

I would really hope for a more transparent developement process.
ATM there is no VIP proposal or Vote running.
So temporarily lowering the collat, re-adding a minting fee could be done.
(I am not really a fan of giving more XVS to the VAI vault, because it would most likely cause some other whales to mint 100M VAI (before the minting fee is implemented) and stake it in the VAI Vault, so the interest would stay at 2%.

I fully understand that the new vault seems to be the top priority (even though I don’t agree - to my mind the VAI desaster should be top priority because it harms the credibility of venus big time - just count the times that people are asking in the Telegram support group for “when VAI 1$ again” and compare it to the number that people are asking about where to stake XVS for more APR)

If it is complicated to implement the stability mechanism from DAI I understand, but at least there could be more transparancy.

I understood that the team is aware of the situation and I understood that they are discussing how to fight the situation.

I don’t understand why there has been no communication since.

4 Likes

This is a no-sense situation, here a user explain how to returnig vai 10% less that he had minted.

Could you translate?

The gain here is arbitrage between Polygon and BSC through bridges and Aave.
VAI is used to get a free temporary conversion between ETH and USDC without having to enter a position.
It highlight how the Mint fee would have been welcome, but is not a breach in VAI model.

edit: I shouldn’t have used arbitrage, better say exchange optimization. He discovered he could pay back his VAI debt for less than months ago, which is true, since months ago VAI were 0.9 and now it’s 0.8
Since I did the opposite (I bought VAI @0.9 and now it’s 0.78) this guy basically cashed in the money I lost. Fair for him, less for Venus.

Team discussing unpeg problems bla bla bla lol they may fix it in a year or so if they don’t decrease the collectral factor and force minters to repay

1 Like

To solve this problem is very simple…
People now just mints the VAI to leverage for making more profits as no stability fees.

3 Likes

Correct. I already advised to use the DAI-style stability fee, yet not providing numbers. Currently it’s just zero.
I like yours, and yes the fee should be capped, 30% APR looks good. I’d be happy the devs implement exactly what you described.

Like the fed they are talking about, talking about the problem. Seen them talking for 2-3 months about improving things with no action