“DeFi yield” includes swaps, collateral, value transfers inter- and intra-chain. Can you explain your own view on what use cases there are other than “DeFi yield”? To me, your condescending tone to @preston isn’t very productive.
I’m curious what else you would consider as a more dominant or even remotely similar in magnitude use case. Burn and mints will still be for DeFi yield on other chains… with returns far higher than a total 0.2% burn on ethereum and 0.1% mint on other chain.
As I said, Chico’s post shows other use cases that are going to be affected. I referred him to that post because he explained it better.
Regarding my supposedly “condescending tone”, that is on you. You are putting the tone you want. It was an honest response suggesting him to check Chicos post as I thought and think he was not considering the whole picture.
Finally, please do not insinuate I put “tones” to my comments, I was not disrespectful and if Preston has issues he can comment it to me himself.
I think the point would be that we would raise the rates over the next epoch to experiment let the data do the talking. If we never try we will never know, every passing day that the network is unable to in unison vote in favor of securing the network and working on improving profitability we are wasting precious time.
This is based on the assumption that our fees actually have any impact on the volume through the network, and there is no way to challenge this without experimenting
Longterm thinking is understanding that now is the best time to experiment as I outlined in another message, the cost to do this today is the cheapest it will ever be.
You are correct, the time is now we must collect data and discover our price, in the future these decisions will be far more expensive, and people who are scared now will really be scared when their decisions cost the network millions, as opposed to hundred of thousands.
Hi all
In my opinion we should wait for any additional changes to the burn fees. I am not explicitly against it, but if we want to reliably evaluate the effect of the recent mint fee raise, we should observe the RenVM volume change over (at least) a couple of epochs.
On another note, I have a feeling that if we decide to change fees too frequently (this excludes continuous fee) we may be looked upon as a system which doesn’t have a very clear vision and set priorities.
As we all wish, the best thing to focus at this point are the new integrations.
Keep up the good work!
P.
I think arbitrage volume is quite possibly a result of yield we are not capturing ourselves, inefficiencies in the market should be squashed, not promoted. We are being taken advantage of, this volume perhaps would not exist if our fees were not so low, which means we would be making the money we deserve rather than some arbitrage. Perhaps Chico is the person making the money in arbitrage and isn’t even a DN operator.
This brings up a good point, how do we validate users in the forum to distinguish being a competition, and actual REN holders / DN operators.
I for one operate 4 nodes, and am looking to operate more, but need to get more comfortable with the economics, security, and community.
At this moment in the vote, I am very concerned that folks in the forum believe that processing 8755 BTC and earning 17 BTC is acceptable. It seems like there are forces that would prefer we not make money, perhaps it is because they themselves are on the other side of the table.
To be fair Chico’s other use cases would be great if things happens on other chain as well. (And in the short term, I do not see many AMMs, Lending protocols, Derivatives Products, tokenisation, etc. happening anywhere)
As an example, Tezos had a tzBTC (via Bitcoin Suisse similar to Bitgo) on its chain for about a year and nothing happened there, you have zero utility.
Point is, multichain is amaizing and the future is great but also performance from interoperability solutions will depends highly on the utility on other chains. And at the current speed, I still expect most of the traffic on Ethereum short/medium term. And fees could be adjusted accordingly. (for the custodian role :x)
For sure, it is super early and I am extremely excited about all these use cases outlined by the team in this older post.
I hope that any of the viable concepts are built out, the volume will come, but until it does we need to spread our wings while it is still inexpensive to do so. Believe me, if you see resistance to change now, imagine what it is like when millions are on the line.
@Steve This is exactly where RFC-000-002 comes in, as RenVM expands to multiple chains it is crucial that we have the capability to control fees in every direction, for scenarios like you have raised, for size, round trips, and even partnership rates with integrators.
Okay, I will attempt to demonstrate why this fee raise is important in yet another light, remember how the world was talking about COVID, and flattening the curve. Well, in the world of DEFI, where the yields have dropped from highs of 200% annualized yield to 25% APY, the exodus is beginning. We are seeing it in two major forms, one with an increased amount of BURN and with a reduced amount of Mints.
So, what everyone here is trying to say is that let’s keep the rates low, let’s incentivize growth, let’s monitor the effects of price on mints longer. The reality is until there is another surge of interest in DEFI or the yields offered in the space, money is looking for the door.
If we miss this opportunity to capitalize on the outflow of capital out of DEFI, as a network we are going to be missing out on money that our network might need to stay motivated. As this reversal out of the space continues, each renBTC that gets BURNED will be another customer looking for greener pastures. These customers will also pay any price to get out. We should be making sure to prop our network up and earn as much as we can while we can. Because who knows when a surge of opportunity will come.
One thing is for sure, nobody is thinking “wow to get my BTC on Ethereum is so cheap, I should move it over now before they raise the fees” or “wow the price to move BTC over is so high, how can we possibly justify bridging it at these rates” We are just a means to an end, and I personally believe we are the best network option out there, with the best experience, the best team, what might be the best community. But people need to also face the music on the real data.
I will be keeping track of each BTC that we miss out on earning while we potentially sit on our hands and watch as the market exodus begins. Either we can choose to get what we can, until the next innovation or breakthrough use case presents itself, as customers with renBTC have no choice but to BURN to get their BTC back or we can stay poor.
keep in mind our volume is driven by integrations. A lot of BTC users are still new to DeFi and spooked easily. Although no renbtc was lost and it was a simple oracle hack, the harvest hack may have affected our volume temporarily. I dont think this week is representative of the volume generally.
My point is that volume is down and we don’t know why. It could be because the fees were raised, it could be something else. Going ahead and raising fees again without knowing which it is is premature.
I will be keeping track of each BTC that we miss out on earning while we potentially sit on our hands and watch as the market exodus begins. Either we can choose to get what we can, until the next innovation or breakthrough use case presents itself, as customers with renBTC have no choice but to BURN to get their BTC back or we can stay poor.
Exactly the kind of short-term thinking the team should not be engaging in.
If you want to attack my thesis, try defending your own? Can you justify your long-term thinking of missing out on the opportunity to capture valuable data during volatile times for your community? Can you handle a drop in price as a result of this decision? How many nodes do you operate? What is your entry? How long have you waited to see this project take off? Do you have any return metrics you value at all? At what price do you sell?
For me, I am here for the long run, I set up my nodes in epoch 5, and have held since ICO, and intend to add more DNs as short-term operators realize that the return metrics will vary wildly in our first year, as BTC continues to rise, while DEFI regains its footing, I firmly believe in the concept of decentralized interoperability in the face of competition like PayPal / BitGo, and further believe that the key to winning in a competitive space is speed and action, not the opposite. Move fast, break things, trial and error, collect data, understand the market, analyze, and grow.
I am strongly against this proposal.
I am strongly against this form of vote.
A lot of people from other projects have joined this forum multiple times in order to vote. Their only intention is to cause problems for REN.
Here is a chart to explain what is actually on the line so members of this community can see that it is not an expensive decision that is being made here, the data gathered is far more valuable. See below:
What you all can see in this chart above is a forecast of burn scenarios, ranging from a moderate continued outflow from DEFI, to an extreme flight to safety. Along with a conservative BTC assumption, I personally think BTC will continue to gain market share as the US will elect a president and pass a massive stimulus deal devaluing the dollar and causing BTC to rise.
We are talking about a maximum of $255 from each DN holder to learn and test price sensitivity and gather valuable data, or do nothing and miss the opportunity. The flow will flow regardless of the fee we prescribe. When it comes to BURN, there is no option for customers, they must go through the network to regain their BTC. This is most likely the cheapest opportunity we will have to challenge these assumptions, as volume from additional integrations come online: Binance Chain, Filecoin, and others are already in testnet, these additional bridged volumes will cost our network more to test and experiment with our assumptions.
People, look at the math, make a rational decision. Don’t vote no just because you are unsure, look at the math. Think for yourself.
Agreed. We need growth right now not fee maximization; that’s another huge benefit of the greycore.
A high priority should be having a way to identify actual darknode holders.
Keep in mind this thread is not to vote yes or no, even though that’s what most of us is doing including myself. It is to gather opinions on a proposal so the proposal can be refined and re-submitted as a RIP (If someone wants to) which is a final draft and then meant for only yes/no answers. I think many agree this isn’t the ideal way to vote since it can be gamed, and there is no way to prove anyone is even invested in Ren. But it seems like most people here are sincere. I don’t think Ren team would ever act on something here if they felt strongly it wasn’t a good idea.
I am against burn fee increase.
I’d love to get more income and my initial impulse was to raise fees. BUT most of us have been overlooking a key thing here: that RenVM fees are/will be mostly used ON TOP of other services. And by increasing fees we might become less attractive not only to end-users, but also to businesses that are considering RenVM adoption. And we’re definitely not at a stage where we have critical mass adoption secured!
RenVM’s initial goal was (and I believe still is) to be a high volume bridge and NOT a warehouse for BTC storage. And for that we need low fees.
It really makes sense. If we have high fees we cut out arbitrageurs and other HFTs with low’ish edges and will be left only with yield farming guys. But if we maintain low fees we’ll secure ALL types of users and thus increase our market share and adoption. And that’s literally the only thing we should care about now!
