only got 58 ETH due to the pause of IL protection. I lost 42 ETH due to a false promise from Bancor. Bancor promised IL protection, but it was a fake advertisement.
Other liquidity pools like THORSwap do not offer IL protection, but the APY rewards with ETH are around 40%.
On Bancor, APY is only 5% for ETH Pool, but it's safer since I get IL protection from Bancor (ok, it was a false promise as I found out on Monday).
But I don't understand something:
1. Why did I only get 5% APY without IL protection (THORSwap offers 30%-40% APY)?
I think it is fair if I get
a) high 30% APY without IL protection OR
b) low 5% APY with IL protect
As for now I got rekt. Bancor only gave me +5% APY, but gave me -42% less back. This is a huge loss for me.
This is why I come to my other question:
2. Bancor has treasury funds (its equal 40 million USD) that exists to cover these losses. Why does Bancor not cover these damages with this kind of insurance money?
Why do Bancor keep these treasury money for themselves? while liquidity providers pay for the damages that were caused by Bancor (Bancor invented and advertised the IL protection mechanism, it was clear that this cannot work in a fast falling market).
Why do users need to pay for the damage, why is it not covered by Bancors treasury?
Fucken heavy
Bancor does not have a treasury
Is thorswap thorchain?
@JensTelegram thanks for all you guys are doing. I'm curious, it was stated earlier that the bancor foundation holds the treasury funds and, even though they are a separate entity, they are fully committed to the well being of the protocol and its users. If this current situation poses a threat to bancor's existence then wouldnt the foundation step in and do everything they can to try to save the protocol and its users?
Hey Kamil. Thank you. I can't speak for the foundation, but you're correct in saying that they are a separate entity and therefore have no liability or obligation.
Thanks for the response. Don't mean it in the wrong way but even if they don't have a legal liability, if the whole purpose of their existence is ensuring the well being of the protocol then should they not be stepping in even if they are not obligated to do so? I know it's not your call to make and you are only conveying what you know but just curious if the foundation has said anything about supporting or not supporting the protocol regardless of how things turn out
DAO Treasury ≠ non profit swizz org
What are their actual liability and obligations?
Обсуждают сегодня