It is the JL team`s idea to make Venus adopt the dual token model. As everyone knows, the team under his leadership has caused huge losses to all users of Venus, especially the holders of XVS. The previous team made many mistakes, and issuing VRT is one of them. The only way for the brand-new Venus to restore trust and return to growth is to do the right thing，but not sticking to the wrong decisions in the past，right？
@Terrence - please explain how venus will be able to produce higher APY’s without increasing XVS emmision rate? You can blame the previous team for miss handled proposals, the core code having errors in it - yet the new team instead of taking the time to correct them is continuing with the same code.
Please take the time fix it, make it more adaptive. If the team won’t change some of the core code to make VENUS more innovative, then VENUS has already hit its dev ceiling and this too isn’t good enough. Does Venus have a dedicated CTO appointed? Senior dev team who’s sole focus is the core code?
You say issuing VRT was the previous teams mistake - yet the community agreed with the plan because we could see the innovation ahead and improved tokenomics. Maybe it is the new team that should look at the opportunity infront of them instead of saying its ‘too hard and no’.
Adding new coins etc isn’t innovative. Not having competitive APY’s is not sustainable long term. Forcing through proposals and ignoring community feedback and votes is not governance or acceptable.
Many funds (TVL) will leave moving forward if the team doesn’t do the right thing now - if this proposal is to be pushed through, at least improve the exchange rate of 12000:1.
I’m personally at a point where I’m questioning venus’ future - with serious competitors coming online which are cross chain etc with better APY’s, if venus is not willing to improve and the dev capability is not present to do so, this will be a drawn out bumpy process indeed.
That’s all true venus supporters want. Optimise the venus core code - who cares if it take 3 or 6 months. Implement VRT when the code is ready. We aren’t here for just a year, this should be built to last a lifetime. The team needs to act with the long view in mind.
I for one would happily hold knowing that venus is being developed the right way.
The biggest lie of the VRT party is: “Using VRT to replace XVS for emissions will reduce the selling pressure of XVS. I have a complete plan to prove this, so: believe me, let VRT take the lead, XVS will be better!”
The actual situation is: after the VRT is in the position, should Venus deal with the dump from the VRT? If you don’t deal with it, VRT will plummet, and the incentive effect of VRT is 0; to deal with? Okay, please hand over the value of XVS to VRT. As a result, the intrinsic value of XVS has fallen? Oh, that has nothing to do with me, because I have a heavy warehouse but only VRT~
Its clear the new team isnt able to improve the code… atleast not now… they made a mistake with xvs borrow… and put Vrt here means a lot work as the code was created to one single coin and not dual coin…
Till the moment a single proof about VRT not bein safe to Venus protocol has been shared… wich means no specialist or any attempt to see how could it be done has been done, otherwise the same way Terrence pick up the data about Aave HEwould already dropped the information about why VRT cant stay.
Last time they used oracle not being safe, as there isnt enought liquidity for Vrt… wich might be true… binance listing vrt could easy handle this isssue… Vrt CAN have its own Vault as well be used for what has been created… But the team doesnt care about it at all… they wanna all easy…
Marcus proposal 3 would handle all issues and wont need to moove or use XVS… but guess what that gives them work… extra work… to open a crypto fund… with binance support… I wont stop fighting for VRT until the day maths are shared and show us why VRT cant stand… soo far its just the voice of Council…
I especially dislike Marcus, who always represents the community，Don’t always claim that you represent the community. You just represent yourself. I hold more than 10000000 VRT. I lose a lot, but I support the proposal because it is right. Some people buy a little, but they say a lot.
Agree, this plan can put XVS back on the right track as soon as possible, and 1:12000 is not low for the current price, let XVS take off quickly, don’t worry about VRT
I agree that people who oppose it are because of the people who buy vrt at a high price and those who have emptyed xvs. Those people are extremely selfish for their own benefit.
Trust me, if you think about it in the long run，The simple token economy model may be the best choice。XVS is the core of the whole economic model and can not deviate from it under any circumstances。Even though I have a lot of vrt in stock，But I still support focusing on XVS。