The bot was doing quite well. it had just started with amazing volume until high fees killed it off. Who knows what other projects have been stymied.
Many of us would argue that your proposals have the opposite effect of creating value for Dark Node Operators. And since you are not a dark node operator, you can simply dump if things didn’t go as planned. We cannot.
One only need to look at the REN/BTC chart to see that increasing fees has done nothing to increase the value of REN and therefore the value of Darknodes. Yet you want to increase the fees even more. Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing again and again expecting different results?
This is false, the below value was created for Dark Node Operators.
Epoch 8 - DN income was 5.23BTC greater than if fees remained at .1%
Epoch 9 - DN income was 6.29BTC greater than if fees remained at .1%
Epoch 10 - DN income is already 7.69BTC greater, and we still have 7 days remaining this epoch.
In total, so far since we voted in fee increases we have created 19.21 BTC in additional value which in USD at $33,000 is $633,930 in value created by raising fees. This represents 29.8% of the total BTC earned by renVM since launch. A healthy and worthwhile amount, and hopefully others who argue against can see how much their decision not voting in support would have cost us.
More can be said about denying the fee raising of the BURN rates back on Epoch 9, from this proposal RFC-000-007.
This has cost the network based on BURN volume a total of 15.47 BTC or 23% of total income. So, looking at the numbers, the anti-fee raising vote has cost the network $510,510 in USD @ $33,000.00.
@FanaticalFishing Are you basing dark node performance and value based on the value of the underlying $ren token as it relates to bitcoin? Token price in satoshis is a poor metric for measuring network value… especially when bitcoin has tripled in the last several months…
@Renchad arb bots are clearly not the bulk of our revenue nor our volume. Please consider what’s important. This is simple price elasticity. I hope we can focus on the data.
Let me reiterate: this is an experimentation of our price elasticity.
I hope that the community agrees that we should continue with our research. It’s proven to have added quite a bit of money to our pockets, and I can almost guarantee you that it will continue to do so.
Of course. The whole premise of this experiment of yours is to increase the value of REN bonded.
The amount of satoshis is a poor metric of crypto value? Are you serious?
This experiment is to increase TVB (and manage TVL) by increasing revenue, decreasing TVL growth velocity, and carefully managing volume. It is not an experiment to pump $ren price.
I have no interest in further debating with you if your responses are fueled by such negative energy and such unprofessional reactions. Thanks for your thoughts. I suggest we let others absorb the information and provide their own opinions.
Perhaps we need another proposal that No Noders should not be submitting proposals. Your short term goals are definitely contrary to Darknode Operators.
What you can define is how much volume those bots would have to compensate to make up for the loss in income if MINT fees remained at .1%, which in this case is 19,210 BTC and counting, which in USD terms is $633M in arbitrage volume, which is more than renBridge has MINTED in its entire lifetime. A lofty goal to claim when the total arbitrage volume is…
To those who don’t understand what he is talking about. He said that his experiment was to increase the value of REN. (TVB), and decrease growth. (TVL), by increasing fees. He did did stop growth which was doubling each epoch. But the price of REN tanked. see the chart below.
For someone who is trading actively, 0.25% is high, I have to pay 0.35% in total, which is quite a lot for most of trades tacking into consideration that there are gas fees too. I don’t understand why we want to milk the mints so much. How many large mints we had recently? Extremely few.
And I tell you something. Less mints will eventually lead to less burns! Keep that in mind. A mint is always equal with a burn eventually. But a burn doesn’t mean a mint. Lets encourage people to mint and spread the word to their friends how great RenVM is. This is marketing. You will never ever have mass adoption if there are only 5000btc locked into renVM and we are going to get there eventually if fees stays the same.
I am not saying that 0.3% isn’t a good idea in 2 years from now but right now we could just encourage adoption. How you expect big players to incorporate RenVM when we barely have over 10k BTC locked? 10K BTC is nothing, there are investment funds that buy that much daily.
Well said. We talk about experimenting and testing out new fees. But all that translates to is maxing out the fees until the project has been killed from within.
Increasing our TVL drives marketing. It drives adoption by farming protocols. It drives future burns and it drives speculative interest around ren’s future potential.
Maxing out our fees reduces our relevance in this space in return for short term profit Driven by a vocal few.
@DeFiFrog even your beloved Badger DAO, a farming protocol focussed exclusively on btc on ethereum with links to ren, prefers to offer it’s best yields and all new pools for its upcoming token to wbtc while ren is ignored. The reason is TVL
For the record, Loong was the one who proposed raising the mint fees because the intention was to lower TVL. Your goal to increase TVL is diametrically opposed to what the REN team wants to do which is to increase velocity but lower TVL and try to keep it closer to TVB. Before we talk about the WHY we should do this, we first need to agree what exactly is the goal here. It seems like we’re operating under different goals.
I would argue that we achieve that high velocity by being relevant.
We need to be of a certain size to ensure that all the defi protocols choose to adopt us. The only reason they don’t currently in my view is a lack of volume and TVL. We need to find a way to catch up with wbtc and lowering fees seems the obvious way to do it. Once we have caught up and are one of the de facto btc on eth providers, we can the think about increasing fees again - but shouldn’t do so straight out the blocks.
I agree that Loong is seemingly more worried about the TVL : TVB ratio, but we’ve not seen any major integrations since Curve (Synthetix didn’t bother to include renbtc on their website recently, Maker have given us a much higher stabilisation fee than wBtc removing the incentive to collateralise with renbtc rather than wbtc).
We need this trend to change if we want to see higher velocity trades, or we risk being left behind and made redundant. Loong is a clever guy and correct on most things, but the growth and adoption by defi protocols has slowed to a crawl since fees increased and I worry we are throwing away our opportunity here for short term gain.
All good points in both sides of the argument. I tend to agree with the opposing side.
The way I see it, this problem is like a recipe, you have several ingredientes that need to balanced. Finding the right balance is sometimes difficult and if you put too much of an ingredient at the beginning, your meal will be inedible at the end and may be impossible to fix later. With this in mind, increasing the fees too much at early stages of adoption may make our product completely unpalatable at the end and we may discover that if we want to fix it, it may be to late as projects moved to other solutions.
continuous fees is the best way to kill this project, if you can’t predict the value of the wrapped asset then you would never hold it. I will be selling up if we implement.
I’m opposed to this proposal for the sole reason that it will make the economic calculations worse for new integrations (who often need to add a fee on top to subsidize themselves).
