Absolutely. They/We were told this repeatedly it was, and it was a huge reason for some (apparently a lot) of us to be so invested.
The argument IS NOT about leverage. Itās about investors (who helped built the treasury) were told repeatedly that the treasury that they endowed would be used in this regard, to preserve price and specifically to solve for price cascade [but, ānot automated to prevent botsā] and it wasnāt deployed the way it was promised.
Hey everyone ā
I was one of those liquidated in todayās event. I didnāt lose nearly as much as many of you, but it was my first time, so it was not pretty. But I figure Iāll put my thoughts out there in case theyāre worth anything to anyone.
To start, I have read every comment & reply on this proposal so far, and both sides have reasonable points. While today was not my best, I did take away some valuable lessons.
This was my first leveraged position. I was leveraged below backing, but I still might have been āoverā leveraged, simply due to my inexperience (perhaps it would not have been āoverā for someone with more experience. For example, I only just learned from the comments that I could have repaid my position from my collateral. I even looked for that feature on Abra, but likely due to my clouded thinking, never found it. I definitely would have done that though.).
This was also a lesson, not in quantity of movement, but in rapidity. I never invest in anything without an exit plan, but this happened so fast I just couldnāt keep up. I watched the prices like a hawk starting from the minute I woke up (literally, first thing I looked at since I saw things dropping yesterday - and stayed up til 3 AM to keep an eye on it), refreshing once a minute sometimes, but just never expected things to move that quickly.
I also didnāt do this completely blind or on faith. I devoted as much time as I felt I could to research given other life factors ā even in retrospect, I donāt know that I would/could have done much differently in terms of research ā so using DYOR as a jab feels a little below the belt. Iām absolutely still learning where to find information, who to trust, and how things work. Totally. But for many of us who lost, even those who significantly overleveraged, we thought we had done the research. I read the docs ā probably 4 or 5 times since I started staking $time in November. Each time, I learned something new, and will likely continue to. But some of the conflicting/confusing/misunderstood statements from the devs, the docs, and the community at large (devs are by no means exclusively at fault for any of this) make it difficult for those of us with less experience to wade through the gray area.
Anyway ā I likely wonāt vote either way on this one. Iāll obviously be happy with any recup on losses, but one of the things that attracted me to the decen space is the personal accountability factor. I got outplayed, not by another person, but by a system I didnāt completely understand or know what it was capable of, and I take responsibility for that position.
That said, please, everyone, rest assured: if we are repaid in ANY amount, I will NOT sell out or pull my investment from this project. I have incredibly high hopes for DAOs as a concept and appreciate and respect Daniās relative transparency.
As an aside, and maybe this is for complete shit, in which case, feel free to ignore it ā I wonder if thereās a way to spread the repaid losses evenly among all holders? If you got liquidated, itās not a complete loss, and if you didnāt, you get ācompensatedā for any drop in price from the repayment. Just a thought. Thanks for reading everyone.
4 Likes
Dear fellow frog,
How is it that you call it leverage fud? correct me if I am wrong, but arent only the leveraged positions liquidated? please explain how the leverage is FUD?
Thatās not the argument. You missed the point.
Itās about the Liquidation happening in the first place with promises of it not happening, specifically.
That was the draw to the project.
Creating Fear Uncertainty and Doubt around a tool specifically used to endow the project, is, FUD. specifically.
You, Not understanding that this is not about leveraging, but the promise to the investors to keep this from happening, is the argument.
Thatās how life works
Iād be fine if the conditions of the repay was that it was locked for X weeks.
2 Likes
I havenāt seen an argument against that holds water, yet. Mostly just, āyou shouldnāt have leveragedā which is a nonstarter being that a huge selling point in the first place was that āwe have a huge treasury, and we can combat Liquidation cascades with itā
Just to clarify - you mean that the repay couldnāt be used/moved for a fixed period? If so, thatās certainly reasonable.
1 Like
Why would it need to be locked at all if youāre in favor? Why put conditions on the people that were āwrongedā if that be the case?
Exactly my liquidation price was 895 so I donāt understand it either no one was being greedy I didnāt even have time to deleverage it because it was already stated that they would do the buy back at certain level I just donāt understand how we have 1B+ Treasury to put it in good use
2 Likes
Why the conditions? If it were wrong, (which my agreement states that itās misleading from the founders at best) there should be no stipulations against those who were āwronged.ā
I mean, whatās the point of giving it back if there are conditions on what is their money in the first place? No?
The argument isnāt about leverage in the first place.
The argument is that we (the investors) provided the money for the treasury which we were promised would be protected (by the treasury) by the founders.
2 Likes
FROG STRONK, Right!?
Honestly, I have largely mixed feelings about it. Strictly speaking, itās not the devsā responsibility, no matter what they actually say. Donāt get me wrongā¦the docs could definitely be clearer, and both Dani and Sifu said things to give us hope. Your line of thought is completely valid, given that most of us would naturally take the word of the people developing this project.
But were we blatantly misled? Itās possible, but it really seems like they are in for the long haul, and weāre all playing a game most of us (myself absolutely included) donāt fully understand OR know the rules. My undergrad degree is in economics, and one thing I learned was the unpredictable nature of how dominos fall in an unprecedented and untested ecosystem.
I think if they were willing to make us all whole, despite the personal accountability I hold for my position, I could live with waiting a couple weeks.
1 Like
The thing to consider now is that it is no longer Dani and Sifuās personal project. It is a DAO. A decentralized autonomous organizaciĆ³n who takes into account majority rule, similar to a well functioning democracy. Iāve been pro all of their decisions to present. This one Iām firmly against. And so far, so is the majority.
Why did I only leverage at 10% if I could have levered at 60% and not face any repercussions?
1 Like
I think some people are missing the point of this discussion. The proposal is to pay back the people that got liquidated BELOW the backing price. If your liquidation price was above the backing price, you are screwed! Hope you learned your lesson on over-leveraging! I understand and think this is a valid inquiry for those that got liquidated under the backed price.
I personally am VERY bullish on this project and really admire the dev team. However it is a bit disappointing to see the protocol dip SO much lower than the backing price when we have been told it couldnāt do that (or at-least it is EXTREAMLY unlikely that it would fall below backing). One of the biggest selling points to this project is the backing per token. I think that today alot of people lost trust in the one function that was supposed to provide security in the whole system; the backing per token.
Is there anything that can be done to ensure that we do not see a dip below backing again? Perhaps a smart contract that executes a buy back if we approach the backing price? What could we do to ensure trust in the project and more specifically in the advertised backing per token?
3 Likes