The Algofi proposal for the minimum change agreed upon above:
1 Like
The proposal voting window has ended and this proposal didn’t receive enough votes. As you can see in the following exchanged emails, there will be another proposal and the appropriate change is still expected to be applied per the Algofi team’s confirmation.
OP
Ok, now the topic is submitted but requires an approval.
Algofi
We reviewed your post – would you be open to a phased CF reduction like we did for the LP token markets? This would prevent immediate liquidations and potentially disgruntled users.
Algofi Withdraw App
OP
Yes, sure, particularly if there is a risk of immediate liquidations.
Algofi
Sorry, would it be reasonable to execute over a 1.5 month time horizon?
OP
Submitted and pending.
Algofi
Ok, feel free to launch on the governance platform.
Algofi Withdraw App
OP
There is about four remaining days for the proposal voting and ~28M votes needed based on the current stats. My expectation has been that you (algofi team) will vote for it before the deadline and it will pass as agreed. If that’s somehow not the case please let me know to avoid any future misunderstanding.
Algofi
As a rule, we don’t participate in big size in the DAO to ensure fairness. How should we proceed?
OP
Then, maybe this route, if you don’t want to overwrite the decision by voting or directly, wasn’t the best option.
Stepping back, the Algofi team, as the product driver/owner, not participating in these critical decisions doesn’t make sense. This is not the last decision of this kind. The immediate consequence is that important decision won’t go through voting if there is a chance to not receive enough support. There is also another aspect about having the necessary expertise when making these decisions, which is beyond the scope of this email.
Alternatively, you can be transparent and let the community know that you are going to vote in this one. Moreover, if the community knew your support from the beginning the result would have been different (see the discussion thread and the current impression about the founders’ position).
There are only less than two remaining days for the final vote. Another option is to cancel this proposal and resubmit after you announced the support for the change. In the end it doesn’t matter to me how the change is applied (process-wise) so feel free to apply with whatever approach you consider appropriate. My suggested alternative options are just what I can think of that are close to what you initially proposed.
Algofi
Do you think there’s another type of proposal to craft that achieves the goal?
OP
I can think of the following but it has different properties, not as clean as the current proposal in > terms of separation of concerns and being future-proof, however helps with the STBL de-pegging concerns too:
- Reduce the STBL liquidity cap to 7.5M (if I understand the definition here as the total STBL MC correctly) and any increase/decrease in this cap requires it to be approved with a new proposal.
In this way any new proposal needs to justify the increase/decrease and unlimited STBL is not just available to be borrowed/created. You can also think of variations of this proposal if it seems generally reasonable.
OP
The proposal voting time is over and it is marked as rejected. I expected an explicit support in voting and discussions (at least publicly confirming the agreement with the change) from the Algofi team as the process was advised by you and agreed upon. I believe I’ve gone beyond my responsibility to push this necessary change forward. My natural expectation was that the Algofi team prioritizes and drives it themselves given their fiduciary duty to users.
You asked me about alternative options and proposals and I provided some. At this point I’m not sure how serious the Algofi team is in applying the chang and or I’m just being gamed (after spending tens of hours and five months from the original report submission) for buying more time and further delays. The ball is now in your court. My advice is to do the right thing for users ASAP and get the minimum necessary change done!
Algofi
We’ve entirely committed to running the process with you through the DAO. Allow us some time to review your proposal idea and we can revert. I’m confident we’ll find a mechanism to work together in a manner that is productive, transparent, and community driven.
OP
Happy to hear that. Let’s get it done then.
OP (May 4)
It has been over two weeks since your latest email and the promise of commitment to addressing the concern. What’s the plan and ETA for the next step?
Algofi (May 8)
Are you open to drafting an alternative proposal using the alternative ideas you’ve posted on this thread? I think it’s important, in the interest of decentralization, to put the vote to the DAO.
OP (May 8)
I’ve done it once and it took me an unbelievable amount of time and effort. A few loud governors do not want to see any changes (even small) to STBL, and they claim you (the founders) don’t support such changes. To be fair to them the last proposal didn’t receive an explicit support from the founders under the discussion thread, and when I referred to the communication emails, one governor called me publicly a liar. If there was an explicit support from the beginning the latest proposal could have been approved.
At this point I think it is your responsibility to the Algofi users to communicate the proposal and make sure it gets done appropriately and ASAP.
So far there are two concrete proposals, the one that was submitted (preferred) and the other one about limiting the STBL MC and making future changes subject to the governors approval. I will be happy to discuss them or other ideas here or under the proposal thread, however the driver of effort should be the Algofi team.
Algofi (May 10)
Ok, let me socialize this in the Discord in the coming days.
OP (May 10)
It sounds like a good plan. Looking forward to voting for a proposal that addresses the concern.
1 Like