Venus tokenomics proposal

NO. This is the proposal 2 that everyone has voted NO to, with a lower bough back ratio even though XVS is at a higher price now (the only acceptable ratio is the price of VRT/XVS right before they announcing the revoke of tokenomic) . What you call 2 use case for VRT is just a bough back plan using XVS at lower apr than XVS. And the part of use 10% user fund to cover shortfall of the protocol, is this a joke? If short fall happen, XVS lost it value and you want staker to lose another 10% on top of that plus the inflation of new minted XVS of those can’t cover it?

4 Likes

Many people who received the airdrop lost a lot of money due to the eventual sell off after the airdrop and then the eventual manipulation of the system by some accounts.

If you don’t want to listen to the community recommendation of a multi-token, that actually works with other protocols, then at least don’t force us to have to lock it away for 12 months and CONSIDER OFFERRING a better rate than 12000:1 and a better APY than 3%. That is just rubbing salt in the wounds. I don’t expect you to offer 1000:1 but at least consider the history of the protocol and provide a better offer if you REFUSE to actually implement the community’s suggestion of a multi-token approach.

7 Likes

I really like the new tokenomics. In my previous comments, I said that vrt will kill xvs, unfortunately it’s sad, but this is the truth. If vrt survived, he would steal from the market value of XVS. n other words, the extra income we would gain from vrt would be lost from xvs. In addition, vrt will give to the platform security damage etc. Simple is always best.

I think the 1/12000 exchange rate is pretty fair. The higher the value of XVS, the higher the value of vrt. It was a nuisance that VRT JL had been plaguing us. Getting rid of this would be more accurate for the platform.

The only thing I don’t like about the new tokenomics is the 10% liability for xvs vault depositors. I think this figure is high and should be reduced to 5%.

6 Likes

Now the team does not have the ability to spend more time on vrt and venus nft.

This is a problem left by the irresponsible JL

Most people who are struggling with vrt issue are because they bought vrt or they don’t have xvs.

Don’t complicate simple problems.

The simpler the plan, the faster the development of Venus

Three months have passed, and there are still people questioning for the benefit of vrt. We don’t have time!We must immediately solve the problem in the fastest way.

I support team concentration xvs.

The market waits for no one, it must be restarted in the simplest way as soon as possible.

We need to grow fast.

Don’t wait anymore, let’s start right away!!

If Venus can be great again, no one cares about vrt

8 Likes

then why lie/mislead about it up till now, could have just said so right when they took over (it’s to avoid backlash on SWIPE if you cant tell).

For those who still doesn’t realize how manipulative this move of the “new team” is (which is the real problem here):

  1. they manipulate the VRT price by creating an uncertainty state for VRT and stalling through “announcements” + delay . You can confirm this by line up the annoucements and VRT price time frame starting with announcement of revoking tokenomic (remember they still answer us about VRT fate with the old whitepaper and there will be vault + staking for VRT by the end of June up to this point, so dont blame it on the old team), also check the way they are presented especially this one https://community.venus.io/t/venus-protocol-weekly-update-w28-2021/1312?u=danny. Now the price is so low even their lower buy back ratio make sense (was higher in proposal #2), and other people start to say “it as good things, as the ratio is better than the VRT price now”, or at least try to negotiate back to proposal #2 ratio. On top of that, this proposal got release not VIA formal weekly update by Danny and right at the time VRT start to pump back up to put a cap on it ( VRT pump much harder than XVS with such low market cap and no one gonna buy it pass 1/12000 ratio to XVS now). If they clearly said they wont support VRT when they took over (which will create blowback on SWIPE), non would have hold/invest in VRT so the only acceptable buy back ratio is the VRT/XVS ratio of that time WITHOUT the vesting period.
  2. They combine this with the XVS vault and XVS borrowing, which everyone long for and totally different issues, trying to pass this proposal. What happened to “can only change 10 lines of code at a time”?
    p/s: now the admin Noone put this on us because “we create this high expectation of VRT” and “Blaming the new team is the easiest way I guess. Everyone has a share in being in this situation, we should not forget that.”. He the one start to pushing “VRT = Vethor + Tfuel” nonsense + point #1 above.
3 Likes

This is the right direction, very good and professional. I feel very comfy with the new team.

4 Likes

This is the best solution, period.
XVS takes a tokenomics that is very strong.
Regarding VRT: converting VRT into XVS and still making sure that additional XVS does not affect the protocol negatively is really brilliant.

People who bought VRT still gets a price higher than they bough and airdropped people has no costs incured. So in my opinion no big deal.
We all want VRT to rise in price(i did not sale mine) and to me it does not matter if the money comes from VRT itself or the XVS exchanged for VRT.

The price action of XVS says the tokenomics proposal is very well received.
That’s just me and what do i know?
DYOR all my friends out there.

5 Likes

The problem with this proposal isn’t that VRT will no longer be part of the protocol. In fact, the exchange offer may prove to be profitable for some. Instead, there are deeper problems with this proposal:

  1. The team ignored the community vote to use VRT in the protocol, further proving that this is not a community project.
  2. The team has no ability to take on the challenges that the community hands them. Successful dual token models exist in the cryptocurrency space. VRT may have been used successfully if we had a creative team that was up to the challenge.

These issues represent deeply concerning problems that compound the other governance issues, which include the inability of vXVS holders to vote and the 600,000 XVS developer wallet that controls every proposal.

For new investors, I strongly caution you to thoroughly examine this protocol before investing. They have a long way to go, and there are other defi loan platforms in the space.

6 Likes

What matters is the amount of devs we have, and the amount of effort they apply to the protocol. Time in this is really quite insignificant. People know venus. Binance can vouch for venus, and primarily, we are defi, so its not a purely speculative asset, but one where people go if there is high returns, safety and functionality.
We dont need to rush, we need to build what can stand for a long time, and function in ways that beats out our competitors. VRT had a great use case, and even if team disagreed, they should have commented why, so that everyone could rationally get behind it. They brute forced it.

No. VRT is becoming nothing. I agree: The team is ignored the community vote to use VRT in the protocol, further proving that this is not a community project.

2 Likes

NO. This is against the community and majority voting. Majority if Venus loyal old members are in favor of VRT to make it the part of Venus protocol. All gone well but now suddenly all changed. This is a cruel decission to be honest and MUST not be implemented.

1 Like

We’ve spent too much time on debating the use of VRT and if we decided for a direction then we should move forward as soon as possible. Clearly the former team haven’t planned thoroughly before the VRT airdrop and I agree we should take a fresh start. Let’s focus on XVS!

3 Likes

I would like to see why VRT couldn’t be implemented in the protocol. Why is it not feasible? Community has been asked to choose the direction and community decided to choose the multi token approach. I am OK if there is really no chance to implement VRT but if there is one, team needs to follow the decision of the community. Trust is the most important asset and team has to prove that by being transparent and show why there is no chance for VRT otherwise there will be too much room for speculation which could ultimately harm the project.

1 Like

WOW.

The Venus Team entirely ignored the Community Vote. Why did they even ask us to vote and state our opinion???

It sounds like the Venus Team dumped their VRT tokens a long time ago and screwing everyone else.

What a joke - there is nothing about community voting about this project.

1 Like

No talk about VAI remove the mint fees and let it become like Venezuelan dollar.

1 Like

Why the VRT solution is a BIG mistake? Unless the team can show proof that it wouldn’t work along side XVS. There are allot of people like myself that only stacked up on VRT when DANNY gave assurances it was here to stay! Is he not the voice of the team? It’s not ok to mislead people! There’s is allot of money at stake… and this is not a game…“oh, my bad” isn’t a answer and honestly that hasn’t even been said. We truly can’t believe a word out of any of the admins mouths and once trust is gone, so is the project. For the people defending this project, it’s one thing to get rid of it and be transparent from the beginning… but to draw it out and give community assurances that it’s a going to remain, and then pull the rug! I know there are people somewhere profiting big from these decisions…JUST NOT THE COMMUNITY! They only care about the whales… no different then politics! Wouldn’t be surprised if the price was suppressed to make 12000-1 sound at least a little appealing! Very little happens by chance in this space! Need to go back to the stgeshow all this happened

  • A community vote is raised comparing 2 different proposals… Beneficiaries hoped that voting or arguments in favor of single token will win or atleast there will be a competition ------But VRT or multi token wins with margin, beneficiaries are in trouble now…
    Next…
  • 2 week before a weekly update comes without any VRT mentioning, community reacts badly with loud and clear voice. Message relayed that Community wants VRT and thats it …so again specific backend single token supporters defeated badly.

Finally last week its said VRT is coming, ppl started buying VRT, everyboday happy, promise of 2 days to show up tokenomics is delayed a week and then silently a post comes in front that VRT is dying in 365 days.
What to say here? No words, literally no words…

1 Like

If you have any strong opinion, please express them on twitter as well

good proposal, Let’s do it guys

We don’t need VRT anymore
Just find a usecases for NFT !

thank you Venus community!

2 Likes

Terrence, despite asking for mods’ opinions on the matter, the team has ignored pretty much all the ideas from the feedback. From the feedback I listed 2 huge risks on cancelling VRT, which I would like to post it publicly and let all the community to read and reflect on, the first has already happened as predicted, and the second one will also happen in turn, with time progressing. Here is the copy & pasting from from the document I sent to Terrence on July 29th after admins and mods received the draft proposal from the team, which is exactly the same as the one posted.

THIS WILL BE A LONG READ BUT PLEASE GET TO THE BOTTOM FOR MATHS

VRT

VRT should take long-term development as the general direction, rather than completely abolishing the principal development.

The market risk of canceling VRT:

  1. The credibility crisis of Venus and the collapse of the community: After the liquidation incident on May 19, 2021, confidence in Venus has been weak, especially those who have been liquidated, they no longer have XVS. For maintaining the long-term vigorous development of the community, now cannot withstand another blow. Personally would prefer to retain the first wave of pioneers who participated in rise BSC and enhance the community effect of both BSC and Venus. The team has the responsibility to listen to the demands of the community, especially when the community’s voting results are very obvious. Otherwise, it is likely to affect the market’s confidence in the effective governance of Venus Protocol, hence the governance value of XVS. From a market perspective, the selling pressure from the community is likely to significantly affect the value of XVS in the short term. The international community generally has great hopes for VRT. Failure to implement what the former team promised may lead to a credibility crisis. I personally suggest that the update focuses on re-exploring the possibilities of programming, not about cancellation or redemption. - END OF FEEDBACK

By pushing the tokenomics as is, the community push back since the announcement was astronomical, the damage to the Venus brand and Binance Smart Chain as a whole, by simply pushing an unfavoured proposal, especially a proposal that clearly lost the vote, has been significant.

NOW THAT THE FIRST OF THE TWO SITUATION HAS HAPPENED, LET’S MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ONE WITH NUMBERS NOW.

  1. The continuous selling pressure brought to XVS by VRT swap and lock-up creates a potential psychological effect on future investors: The lock-up after the VRT purchase will release about 750,000 XVS to the market, which will affect the mentality of investors, plus the millions of XVS if VIP29 is implemented. XVS will face an additional burden lasting for 21-24 months. Although the quantity is still manageable, it still will affect the confidence of potential investor. If combining the effect with repurchase burning and dividends, the buyback and burn will not be as effective. The additional supply will have an impact on the value of XVS. - END OF FEEDBACK

AAVE’s average monthly revenue for June and July 2021 is $29 million, with $22 Billions in assets TVL, token utilization rate at 83%. Aave has been generating $0.1318 monthly revenue per $1000 assets. Venus currently has 36% token utilization rate for the past 2 months, which is a flat 47% less than Aave. Let’s assume we, Venus, have $5 Billion TVL in the near future. Let’s assume our revenue will be around $2 million per month, with 20+20% used as buyback & burn and vault, the monthly spending on buyback is $800,000, in reality because of jump rate model our revenue will be even less as Aave has reached the jump rate curve kink and receives a much higher interest income and Venus, on the other hand, with 36% token utilization rate will not reach a jump rate spike. At current price $35, amount of XVS bought back is around 22,500. If price of XVS token is $50, amount of XVS bought back is 16,000. Which one paper looks like an attractive incentive. If price of XVS token is at $100, amount of XVS bought back is 8,000.

Our current emission through vaults is 8,500 per day, 255,000 per month. VRT vault exchange rate releases 64500 XVS into the market per month. VIP-29, assuming the average release price for XVS to settle bad debt is at $100, releases 770,000 XVS into the market over 9 months, which is around 85,000 per month.

We are facing an emission of 404,500 per month in the coming year, and yet our revenue buyback model is buying back anywhere between 10,000 to 20,000 per month, which is 5% or less compared to the total emission.

The team is pushing an tokenomics that would not benefit either XVS holder or VRT holder, while sugar coating it by not providing adequate mathematical calculations and market projections.

Without VRT replacing majority of daily emission for XVS, which is the biggest component of emission of XVS in the coming year, the tokenomics proposal hurts ALL token holders, regardless of whether we are a believer or single-token economy or dual-token economy.

With the implementation of VRT as rewards and slashing most of the supply of XVS through daily emission and keeping XVS emission low around 10 million, XVS has it’s highest potential fulfilled. Because of low XVS emission, buyback execution will have higher effect on the value of the token.

Let’s do a case study, MakerDAO has 8.3 Billion TVL right now at the moment the comment is written. The price of MKR token is $3131.50. The circulating supply is 991328 and there is no emission. By keeping XVS token supply around 10 million through low emission and effective buybacks, theoretically when Venus TVL reaches 8.3 Billion, the price of XVS token is at $313.

Of course market has a lot of variants and the case of MakerDAO and MKR token cannot be exactly replicated for Venus and XVS token. However, we can have an expected range of $200-$400 for the Venus token with it’s superior tokenomics compared to MKR token. The only way to achieve it, is to have a low XVS emission through VRT, and a vibrant community that trusts the team and is self-starting to promote the project for the project.

11 Likes