Maybe it’s then reasonable to list all trusted KNC staking pools on the KyberDAO homepage. Staking small amount of KNC on my own is not economically beneficial because of high gas cost. Only problem then is that we don’t have trustless system, I have to rely on pool manager honesty.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Good governance is not the same concept as democracy, you guys are thinking it all wrong.
Individual rights are no subject to public vote; a majority has no rights to vote away the rights to a minority; the governance function of any social system is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority in the kyber ecosystem is the individual) either they are Lp’s, KNC holders or traders, they should all have the same rights and treated equally before the code as INDIVIDUALS of our ecosystem.
They should have all the same individual rights, NEGATIVE rights, negative rights of, do not take away the fruit of my labour, NOT positive rights of… i have the right of having free ROI because I belong to this collective or group, every positive right infringe a negative right of another!
Is wrong! The end doesn’t justify the means. I believe in GOOD governance, not socialism democracy based on privileges to collectives and Keynesian economics. Good governance can turn in fact to democracy, which always fails. I believe in governance not democracy.
I’d like to see the healthy financial report of Kyber Team, how much ETH they have left from ICO? I want to see honesty, i want to see if they really need funding, to deliver a competitive platform, doesn’t need to infringe the negative rights of the individual in the ecosystem, i don’t believe is necessary to sacrifice the negative rights of a group to privilege another group. Let’s find a way to circumvent our lack of volume issue without sacrificing the negative rights of the individual.
2 Likes
I don’t see KNC team is going in right direction. I am holding from 2 years. Other protocol networks are growing exponentially. My opinion is KNC don’t see much growth in any aspect. Now team is coming with upgrades thought which is not at all worth.
hi my view is that things need to be shaken up for kyber. the dmm is a good start. but the team needs to make big changes to the knc token. If it continues the way it has always been running, it’s going to be extremely tough for them to replace sushiswap and uniswap at the top. so what are the current differences between them now?
uniswap
- good: market leader. for the longest time the only permissionless venue for food coin listings, so it has first mover advantage. anyone can add liquidity. very simple and easy to use UI. 400 UNI airdropped to most defi users, so it is the most popular and has community goodwill
- bad: UNI token doesn’t do anything apart from voting. uniswap has big impermanent loss, low capital efficiency, low liquidity for some tokens. needs a lot of tokens to ensure average liquidity. tech is simple, no issues after a long time. but doesn’t offer anything better for liquidity providers or takers than other platforms
sushiswap
- good: permissionless, anyone can add liquidity. backed by FTX and Mark Cuban. Stole a lot of liquidity from uniswap within just a few weeks of launch with a vampire attack. SUSHI token is inflationary and yield farming is possible. big incentives for holders to deposit SUSHI to receive more SUSHI in its liquidity pool. aim is to steal more liquidity from uniswap. Sushi Tvl 3.52b, catching up to Uniswap’s 3.9b with this move. SUSHI also gives fees.
- bad: tech copied from uniswap. but doesn’t offer anything better for liquidity providers or takers. Same tech disadvantages as uniswap - big impermanent loss, poor capital efficiency
kyber
- good: og defi. proven tech. good rep, well known, integrated with many dapps. partnership with aave.
- bad: tech is better than uniswap and sushiswap but not permissionless. big mistake. only projects can add liquidity so very few tokens there. poor liquidity due to lack of tokens from retail. no yield farming or liquidity mining. token model isn’t working. already lost a lot of users to other projects.
the main differences are
- kyber is not permissionless
- knc token model is not good
- no liquidity mining
Luckily kyber 3.0 is making a permissionless dmm. so anyone can add liquidity. the team claims the dmm is more capital efficient with better fees for lps compared to uniswap and sushiswap. this should bring a lot more users and liquidity to kyber assuming there is liquidity mining later.
So what’s left to fix is the knc token model which works poorly now. eth fees are good but the burns and rebates don’t seem to be helping improve liquidity. inflation used to be a bad word. i was very afraid when aave first introduced inflation but the market was so supportive (disclaimer: I’m an aave holder) and the price shot through the roof. after reading more into it and listening to various podcasts my view is that inflation is actually good for short term adoption.
Burning or deflationary model only works when there is big demand for the token in the first place. if there is no demand, it will take many years for movements in price anw. if there is demand, inflation doesn’t matter, as seen with sushiswap, which is just issuing more SUSHI to get liquidity to overtake uniswap but price has been picking up.
No matter how much better kyber tech is compared to others, kyber needs to introduce liquidity mining for their dmm or it cannot compete with things like sushiswap which is just issuing more SUSHI to get more liquidity. and knc needs inflation to do liquidity mining, simple as that. it’s do or die for kyber with their dmm. so i will vote for the knc token to be more dynamic but to keep the burn option.
what i think should be done for knc in no particular order:
- knc should have both inflation and burning options. Leave it to the dao to decide when to use either.
- when liquidity mining is needed we need to mint some knc to grow the ecosystem. But after kyber finally becomes the market leader and demand for knc is high, vote to burn excess knc so that early knc holders are rewarded more for their long term commitment. kyber needs both inflation and burn in the lr.
- liquidity mining for lps needed for the dmm. also give knc tokens to defi users like what uniswap and 1inch did. they can only claim on the dmm.
- knc holders who stake on the dao should get more liquidity mining rewards on the dmm.
- penalize knc holders for unstaking tokens from the dao by making them pay a small fee. proceeds go to other knc holders
- all extra knc rewards minted for liquidity mining should be vested over 1 yr
- kyber team should invest a lot at the start to make sure the dmm gives the best yield for lps and best price for traders
- kyber should be the best L2 liquidity aggregator. incentivize liquidity with more knc. kyber needs to give the best price
- build kyber on polkadot cosmos and bsc. make a cross chain swap bridge after sufficient liquidity
hoping kyber makes proper changes to the knc token and follows aave’s growth!
14 Likes
Disclosure: Hyperchain owns KNC tokens. All content in this proposal represents the opinions of Hyperchain and should not be construed as financial advice. The information contained herein is solely for educational purposes.
Hey everyone,
My name is Stelian Balta. I am running Hyperchain Capital. I have been investing in the space for a long time. Hyperchain is a long-term holder of many projects, including Ethereum, Kyber, Cosmos, Polkadot, Dfinity, Tezos, Fantom, with an AUM of more than $300M.
We are major long-term holders of KNC (5 Million KNC) and have been involved in the Kyber Network project since its formation in 2017. We have been participating in their KyberDao governance since the first epoch, witnessing the project’s growth since Loi shared with me his idea and vision to where Kyber is now. I also have observed the hard work, integrity, and transparency displayed by the Kyber team over the years.
That said, it is clear that Kyber’s market share (in terms of liquidity provision) has dropped substantially, reflecting the need for massive changes to enable it to adapt much faster and capture future trends. As such, we are very supportive of the Kyber 3.0 plan as we believe it solves key constraints that are severely inhibiting its growth while opening up new growth vectors.
At a high level (and with caveats), we are also supportive of the KNC token migration proposal to make the token more flexible and amplify its governance powers. We believe that this a necessary tool to drive adoption and fulfil Kyber’s full potential, especially for its new dynamic automated market maker protocol and new protocols.
In 2020, the AAVE community had very similar concerns regarding inflation during the migration from LEND to the new AAVE token. Despite the concerns, AAVE has proven that a carefully executed token migration strategy, along with a comprehensive governance framework that puts growth and value accrual as a key objective, can work extremely well. That said, every project is different, and Kyber needs to find its own set of governance rules.
We would like to stress that inflation on its own without guard rails is not ideal. We strongly recommend the implementation of important safeguards as part of the migration process, and we would be hesitant in voting in support of migration unless there are clear plans outlined to ensure responsible management of the token supply for the benefit of KNC holders like ourselves.
These are the governance safeguards and tools we recommend for Kyber.
Recommended KNC Governance Safeguards
-
Every minting needs to be a new proposal approved by the DAO. No single centralized party should be able to control the minting process. For example, minting new KNC for liquidity mining on the dynamic market maker requires a new proposal and vote by the DAO.
-
There needs to be a sufficient timelock period between a proposal passing to the KNC token undergoing any upgrade or minting. Our recommendation is 1 week for the average proposal.
-
There should be a supply cap that allows for sufficient flexibility but never infinite or abusive minting. Any raising of the supply cap should have a far larger quorum and timelock period. For example, our recommendation is that any raising of the cap requires at least a 3-week timelock period and a voting quorum of 40%.
-
For new tokens that are released into the market to fund new projects or reward stakeholders, it should be accountable in terms of achieving the stated objectives. This means that additional tokens should be locked up with the DAO until objectives are met or an appropriate vesting schedule is in place. We recommend a vesting schedule of about 1 year, with rewards claimable every 2 weeks, similar to what Synthetix did in the past for their staking rewards.
-
There still needs to be greater incentives and convenience to encourage KNC holders to lock up their tokens for a prolonged period and vote in the DAO. We highly recommend that more incentives are given to KNC voters and an easy method be provided to allow KNC stakers to automatically convert their ETH rewards to KNC and stake these tokens after every epoch. This ensures a constant increase in KNC locked that are not circulating, serving as a natural counter against inflationary pressure.
Overall, if the token migration has a strong set of safeguards and provisions, we will be in full support of the proposal. We would like the Kyber team and community to seriously look into and discuss our recommended set of safeguards.
Kyber has an uphill task ahead given their current constraints, and we believe that a dynamic and flexible KNC token will be able to help fund new growth and innovation. Moreover, the wider distribution of KNC through ecosystem initiatives such as retroactive rewards and liquidity mining for deserving stakeholders, will bring more people into the Kyber and KNC ecosystem over time.
Together with the solid fundamentals of the Kyber team and technology, this will help Kyber become a top liquidity provider in DeFi again.
13 Likes
I support your proposal.
No one even thought about the liquidity mining system back in 2017 and now it’s just one of the default features AMM platforms have. We don’t know how defi market/trends will change in the future so it’s always better to have the ability to mint/burn the tokens in the necessary situations.
DMM adoption will be the key point whether Kyber can move forward or continue losing market share and LM will take an important role. For DMM adoption, I will support minting max 10% of the current supply that will be distributed through several months(or years) to LPs.
Not sure about KNC airdrop on dmm but we can consider giveaway KNC to KNC holders who have staked and voted on kyber.org, giving the small gift to the royal supporters 
1yr for the vesting is way too long in this space, If I only can claim LP rewards after 1yr, I wouldn’t even consider becoming an LP on Kyber. A better way would be splitting the total LP rewards into 20 badges (arbitrage no.) and each badge lasts for 4weeks. LPs can claim the rewards when each badge is finished. Early badges should have higher rewards amounts to attract early adopters for sure.
I like your L2 liquidity aggregator and cross-chain idea, If the gas price continues to be high like now for the next few months, L2 solution will get more attraction and start to generate meaningful volume. If Kyber becomes a first mover here, we will take back volumes we lost during defi summer.
2 Likes
From my point of view new minting should ensure that new coins will add value to the whole network. Thus, there is pointless to reward retroactively stackeholders who currently hold KNC. Just because they will be rewarded with the price.
New coins should be focused on the projects that increase liquidity and make KNC a better protocol with more market share. If it’s profitable it should be possible to create new coins, convert them to other ones to increase liquidity in the network. Then, the rewards and the profits not realized from those other coins can be used as an authomatic safeguard to price drops in KNC.
New coins have to be used also to increase integrations.
Completely agree with point 5. ETH rewards should have the option to be converted authomatically in KNC. And there should be an option to vote authomatically in all epochs if you don’t change the vote without delegating. That will increase the stacking from small investors.
1 Like
So KyberDAO will be a democracy, ruled by the tyranny of the majority. What if i don’t want to give free printed tokens at expense of me, at expense of the fruit of my labour, but the majority has spoken and they want to self-sacrifice to give privileges to another collective, well, then i get fucked even if i don’t want to?
at least a 3-week timelock period and a voting quorum of 40%.
oh, and is not a supermajority of 80%, or at least 51%, is a 40%!!!
I have a very sarcastic idea! What about if we put the quorum of 2.5% which is about the 5 million KNC of the circulation supply which is aboyut what @HyperChain owns, so the decision is all theirs! Seriously Am i the only one that notice these things? @HyperChain you want 40% because you would own then 1/20 of the decision! That’s so cute of you guys!
I propose a supermajority of 80% QUORUM, supermajority or nothing.
I propose not using inflation at all too! And research on L2 solutions instead, to make it cheaper for traders to trade, so we get their ETH that will fund ALL of the individuals in the ecosystem, liquidity miners, KNC holders and even traders CASHBACK in KNC for trading at our platform if you want! JUST Don’t USE inflation please.
If you don’t mine new coins KNC will keep loosing market share. Thus, reducing its price. It’s not just about reducing the amount of coins it’s also about increasing revenue.
Imagine that months ago there KNC had increased its supply and converted them to wrapped BTC or ETH. Now the coin would be valued at 5$ at least. And maybe would have been the leader in De-Fi.
This is not true! Not necessarily, If we find a second layer solution and put everything on L2, we will have MORE traders that will come to Kyberswap to trade cheap, this will attract a lot of volume by its own, which WILL result in MASSIVE ETH coming to KYBERDAO, which will result IN a increase in market share! Because KNC will become a high dividend paying asset and KYBERDAO ETH will also fund Liquid miners WITHOUT any inflation based tactics that are at expense of token holders! GIVING high ROI at expense of KNC holders via inflation to liquidity miners is just a BAND AID solution, it does no threat the greater wound! TRADERS WANT CHEAP TRANSACTIONS, in any case print tokens to give them to traders so they come at kyberswap to alleviate them high GAS transactions costs of kyberSWAP, then they pay us the ETH fee. Which that solution will also sucks! Doesn’t matter if we give printed tokens to traders or liquidity miners. The only thing that doesn’t suck is L2 solutions!
As a knc holder, I support this new model (inflation) under the premise of complete protection measures to prevent mass selling. The trend of DeFi changes very fast, and only flexible models can adapt to it. With the launch of Kyber3.0, it’s time to make changes.
In the previous deflation model, although the scarcity of knc can be improved in the long run, but it also limits the development of the entire network due to lack of starting funds to attract new liquidity. just look at snx and sushi which have inflation and managed to build such as big community and with high token value. I would like a deep reform to inject fresh blood into the whole kyber ecosystem.
2 Likes
Your argument so far is simply “inflation is bad, layer 2 is the rescue”, and I have repeatedly mentioned that we are gonna do L2 anyway. This is not conflicting at all with what is brought up in this thread, cus we BELIEVE the token upgrade is an important update step for us to complete the bigger picture for Kyber to compete with many other projects in this space. Again, both of our opinions are subjective, and while we are still very certain about what we proposed, we still need validation & approval from the community via the DAO voting.
I dont think it is healthy at all to continue this discussion if you can’t bring up new points to support your opinion. Thus, if you dont have anything else to add, please vote on the campaign later on when it is created.
1 Like
Hi
Don’t get disappointed with the discussion. Every one trying to make KNC as best network as compared with others. Few people outlined where we are lagging. Please try to work on those points. We are holding KNC coins from 2 years with very less appreciation when compared with other networks. Try to clarify the doubts. Every one finally vote based on their understanding.
1 Like
Thanks for the feedback. I understand and appreciate that we are all trying to make Kyber and KNC better. Totally welcome healthy discussion with valid arguments. But when there is unhealthy discussion that creates too much noise with not enough substances, we should be against that to keep this forum work.
1 Like
My argument might be simply but not incorrect, inflation is indeed bad for token holders, is giving privileges to other collectives at expense of KNC HOLDERS. You don’t get my point that ALL the individuals must be treated equally, and none should have given privileges at expense of others.
Okey, what about this, WE do inflation, with many of the control parameters mentioned before, BUT the day is L2 Is finally HERE, AND after we get massive volume on kyberswap, and therefor a lot of ETH for kyberDAO. we then implement again scarcity model. THE PROBLEM is, that once we get L2 and enough volume and therefor ETH for kyberDAO, we still will be doing that practice of printing? Let’s implement steps to also eliminate the inflation model (to get back to deflationary) so it will not be ABUSED by DEMOCRACY, EVEN WHEN we don’t need it anymore!
When L2 is here along with its expected volume, liquidity miners will be earning HIGH ROI KNC from inflation, at the same time a lot of volume will be entering to kyberswap and therefore a lot of ETH from traders will be going to kyberDAO, We should start at some point to STOP paying them with printed tokens and instead paying liquidity miners with HIGH ROI ETH and decreasing KNC PRINTING, We need a plan, so this inflation model can be reversed back to deflationary, and not abused EVEN after getting massive volume and ETH going to KYBERDAO, if enough ETH goes to KyberDAO, we can start funding liquidity miners with that INSTEAD of printing tokens. MY POINT is clear and healthy?
NOW that said.
@HyperChain said this:
at least a 3-week timelock period and a voting quorum of 40%.
They say the hold 5million KNC thats about 2.5% of the current circulating supply, they mentioned a voting quorum of 40%, their vote will constitute about 1/15 of their proposed quorum, that quorum proposed it too low, i proposed a supermajority quorum of 80%… either all the supermajority agree or proposals does not pass the quorum. Suggesting 40% quorum IS Just too little, knowing they will have 1/15 of the decision power. How convenient of them suggesting that quorum. Supermajority of 70-80% or nothing.
Hi @tezoswakenbake we really appreciate your enthusiasm and passion, and we definitely welcome different perspectives.
Some points are indeed worth discussing with the community, for instance:
a) The potential for the KyberDAO to vote to burn excess tokens in the future once we have garnered sufficient adoption and less minting is required. This was raised by other community members as well.
b) A voting quorum of more than 40% for larger inflation amounts.
However, some of your comments are bordering on being toxic and offensive, and have introduced plenty of noise to the discussion, which goes against our forum guidelines. Please keep your feedback constructive and to the point. Do give alternative suggestions if you disagree with certain points from others. Thank you!
Regarding L2, Kyber has a dedicated team working solely on L2 research and we are very well-versed on the latest scaling and cross-chain approaches in the space. That is one of the reasons why Velo Labs have chosen Kyber as its technical partner. L2 is not a simple endeavor as there are many tradeoffs, but we are working hard to develop our own effective solution. We should have more updates on L2 later in the year. Meanwhile, you should share your thoughts on L2 in this part of the forum instead: Scaling / Cross-chain - Kyber Network
Kyber’s current focus is on Phase 1: Katana of Kyber 3.0, which includes the KNC migration proposal and the launch of DeFi’s first permissionless Dynamic Market Maker (DMM), which should bring a lot of new tokens to Kyber and greatly enhance our liquidity.
4 Likes
i’m sorry Shane, i don’t recall saying anything offensive to anyone, can you quote me? I say how convenient of @HyperChain choosing that extremely low quorum, it that offensive? I say it should be a supermajority quorum or nothing, is that offensive?
I say is wrong to give privileges to a collective at a cost of another. I said a bunch of rationalities but not offending someone.
Please quote me offending someone i want to see the offensiveness.
It appears that there is no debate, if i don’t want inflation to fund privileges to certain collectives, it doesn’t matter because there is already discrimination about my comments of refusal to do this that clearly will be at expense of KNC holders, discriminating me because my opinion “is toxic and offensive” (to whom?). There is no debate, this will be done anyways, so why debating? Is a waste of time debating about if is going to be done or not, The only debate allowed is how we are going to do it, instead of if we are going to do it or not.
b) A voting quorum of more than 40% for larger inflation amounts.
Why a quorum of 40% only for larger amounts? and for less amounts it will be the will of some whales like @HyperChain?
It should be a supermajority will for ALL decisions of 80% based on participation. Quorum should be dynamic and automatic adjusting based on previous participation like it is done in tezos governance. Quorum is not static in tezos, its dynamic and is always adjusting itself based on previous participation and quorum is always based on a supermajority. Tezos is well thought.
Shane mentioned they were bordering offensive, not openly offensive, and I would agree as it isn’t hard to see the passive aggressiveness in your comments. This isn’t the place for that.
When it comes to the debate/discussion on hand, you are repeating your same points made previously. We’ve acknowledged these points several times over. So to continue repeating the same points/claims about why you think the dynamic supply is a bad idea is pointless and becoming spam now. It is even bleeding over to other social channels such as Telegram where you are chiming in about why you think it’s bad to user’s who aren’t even asking. This isn’t acceptable.
We are not here to push our views on others and shove it down their throat, we are here to share our views and allow others to read them and accept them if they feel similarly, or dismiss them if they don’t. Ultimately, being a DAO, the KNC holders will be the deciding factor.
It also doesn’t help when you make claims such as:
There is no debate, this will be done anyways, so why debating
This along with several other claims you’ve stated previously either A: aren’t true, or B: aren’t possible to predict/know. Those types of claims/predictions do not belong in governance discussion.
Transparency is important especially in the world of crypto/decentralization, however, if you continue filling the discussion with noise by repeating previously made points and little to no additional information we will have to remove the comments as it’s helping nobody.
You can also reach me by DM if you’d like to discuss any of this away from this proposal topic.
Okey, remove my comments, this is forum is your private property, so you can discriminate my opinion and remove all my comments so the information of what i said is lost. This is valid, because this forum is yours, and Shane and Loiluu and i believe in private property, but it will be regardless discrimination of my content. You don’t like my tone i get it, but erasing information of what i said, is discrimination, and also could be seen as a way to silence my rationalities so others can’t see it so others can’t bring up to the table.
Now, I want to discuss this:
Shane: b) A voting quorum of more than 40% for larger inflation amounts.
Why a quorum of 40% only for larger amounts? and for lesser amounts it will be the will of some whales like @HyperChain?
It should be a supermajority will for ALL decisions of in example 80% based on participation. Quorum should be dynamic and automatically adjusting based on previous level of participation like it is done in tezos governance. Quorum is not static in tezos, its dynamic and is always adjusting itself based on previous level of participation and quorum is always based on a supermajority.
This is a good idea worth of discussing.
I definitely won’t be removing older posts, as I said, transparency is important - talking about future posts!
and for lesser amounts it will be the will of some whales like @HyperChain?
Nobody said that, and is also part of what I was trying to say above. We’re here to discuss exactly this, not just make assumptions. Do you think lesser amounts should have the same quorum as larger amounts? Why/why not? What are the pros/cons?
As for the 40% quorum, above you mention:
oh, and is not a supermajority of 80%, or at least 51%, is a 40%!!!
The 51% part makes me think you are mistaking quorum for the votes required to pass. Requiring 40% quorum doesn’t mean if 40% say yes it passes, it means 40% of voters have to vote before the proposal is even possible for being executed.
So in that case, if 35% of all possible voters vote, and they all vote for a proposal to pass, not a single person votes no, the proposal will not pass, it will not be considered, as it did not reach quorum.
After the quorum is met, it could still require 80% in favor to pass (though generally in DAOs I’m noticing majority is preferred, so 51% and higher.
That said, is there a reason you think that no proposal should even be considered unless 80% of the entire DAO votes? It’s important to compare voter turnout in other Ethereum DAOs like Aave, Compound, and elsewhere. Reaching 80% is highly unlikely. I can’t speak for Tezos as I’m not an expert, completely different architecture than Ethereum, and to my knowledge most Tezos people are baking/delegating which concentrates the voting power and leads to a much larger voter turnout - exactly why I personally think the 80% is unlikely for Kyber or any other DAO on Ethereum. Even now in the current implementation we aren’t hitting 80% (or even 70%) voter turnout, so to require that strictly for quorum would mean it would be very hard for the DAO to do anything.
1 Like