.png?alt=media&token=80cb5c93-9a3f-4734-acd0-6fae869ae45e)
🗒
AIPの詳細
AIPの詳細はこちらから見ることができます。
1) ITAMは2021年4月から5月に実施された最初のGrazing Rangeです。このITAMの報酬は、ITAM-BNBファーマーとBNBレンディングへの追加報酬として提供されたものです。後のGrazing Rangeとは全く異なる配布で、ユーザーはステーキングによりこれらの報酬を受け取ることができると明示されていませんでした。
2) 現在、917k ITAM（500k USD）が未請求のまま残っています。
3) ITAMは最近買収され、2022年3月31日までにスワップされなかったトークンは、その実用性をすべて失うことになります。
下記の抜粋をご覧ください：
ITAM-to-ITAMCUBE token swap portal will close in [11:59PM UST] March 31, 2022.
“With this said, the token swap portal will close at the end of next month. If you have not yet swapped your ITAM token to ITAM CUBE token, we strongly ask you to do so as quickly as possible. For any ITAM token that has not been swapped afterwards will lose all its utility. We sincerely hope we can make it clear that Netmarble F&C will NOT support ITAM token and will NOT use ITAM token in any of its services and initiatives. Only ITAM CUBE.”
コミュニティでの議論とフィードバックの後、2つの投票の選択肢が提供されました。
選択肢1）ITAMの100%をITAMCUBEに変換する。MEXCでITAMCUBEをUSDTに替え、USDTをBNB ChainでALPACAに交換する。請求のために12ヶ月の猶予期間を設ける。12ヶ月後の未請求のALPACAは焼却されます。この選択肢はSnapshotの文字数制限のため「Sell ITAMCUBE to ALPACA」と表示される予定です。
（現在、MEXCには十分な流動性があり、ITAMCUBEの全量を5%未満のスリッページで交換することができます）
選択肢2）ITAMの100％をITAMCUBEに変換する。請求のために12ヶ月の猶予期間を設ける。12ヶ月後の未請求のITAMCUBEはALPACAを買い戻しに使用して焼却する。この選択肢はSnapshotの文字数制限により、「Keep ITAMCUBE」と表示される予定です。
コミュニティは選択肢1に賛成と投票しました。
- ITAMCUBEは、MEXCで平均0.667ドルでUSDTに売却されました。 合計613,840 USDTが取得され、こちらアドレスに預けられました。0x8c968582a6935ece360Bc2665979458CD4D79203
- USDTは2022年3月4日から3月11日の1週間にわたって、ALPACA購入に使われました。
- 合計1,554, 697 ALPACAが得られました。
- 対象ユーザーはこのALPACAを請求することができます。
- 請求は2023年3月15日まで行うことができます。未請求のALPACAは焼却されます。
当社のFantomファームは、ローンチ後1週間でTVLが3700万ドルを超え、順調に成長しています。また、FTMとUSDCのレンディングプールは、Fantomの他のプロトコルと比較して最も高いAPYを記録しています。
プラットフォームが成長するにつれて、プロトコルの収益も増加します。その結果、多くのコミュニティメンバーから、「Fantomで発生したプロトコルの収益はどうなるのか？」という質問が寄せられています。
以下、提案につながるそれに対する答えをいくつか挙げていきます。
- レンディングパフォーマンス手数料は、ALPACAを買い戻して焼却：これはBNB Chainですでに行っている方法と同じです。BNB ChainとFantomの$ALPACAは供給を共有しているので、買い戻しは、すべてのチェーンのALPACAホルダーの利益になります。
- ファーミングパフォーマンス手数料の収益：この収益をどうするかは、アルパカの将来の成長とトークン価格に強い影響を与える可能性があるため、真剣に検討する必要があると考えています。これが今回の議論の主題となります。
- Grazing Rangeの報酬：上記と同様に、パートナーのトークンをどのように扱うかはFantom上のGrazing Rangeパートナーシッププログラムの魅力と成功に直接影響します。
Fantomの収入の分配方法については、いくつかの案があります。
選択肢 #1
- FantomにGovernance Vaultを設置する。
- BNB Chainと同様に、Fantomの収益＋Grazing Range報酬の100%をFantomのGovernance Vault預金者に分配する。
選択肢 #2
- FantomにGovernance Vaultを設置しない。
- Fantomからの収益はすべてブリッジされ、BNB ChainのGovernance Vaultの預金者に分配されます。
- 注：このオプションは技術的には実現可能ですが、FantomのパートナーにとってGrazing Rangeの魅力が大きく損なわれる可能性があります。Fantom上の忠実なALPACAホルダーがいなければ、GR パートナーを私たちのプログラムに参加させることは難しく、それはALPACAホルダーへの報酬が少なく、トークンを保持する需要が少ないことを意味します。
選択肢 #3
- FantomにGovernance Vaultを設置する。
- Fantom上で発生した収益＋GR報酬の一定部分をBNB Chain上のGovernance Vaultの預金者に還元し、残りをFantom上のステイカーに分配する。
選択肢 #4
- FantomにGovernance Vaultを設置する。
- それぞれのチェーンで発生した収益を合算し、それぞれのチェーンのxALPACA額に基づいて分配し、両方のGovernance Vaultで達成されたAPRが等しくなるようにします。
- FantomのGR報酬の一定割合をBNBチェーンのGovernance Vault預金者に還元（報酬トークンの売却は不可、Fantomで請求する必要あり）。
私たちシニアアルパカは、上記の3つの選択肢の長所と短所を比較検討し、牛舎の中で長い議論を重ねました。そして、熟考の結果、選択肢3（または4）が私たちのコミュニティにとって最良の解決策であると信じています。
コアチームの見解では、Fantomの収益の80%はFantom Governance Vaultの預金者に、20%はBNB ChainのGovernance預金者に分配されるべきであると考えています。 同様に、FantomパートナーからのGR報酬の80%はFantom預金者に与えられ、残りの20%はFantom上のBNB Chain預金者が請求することができます。 BNB Chainの預金者が受け取るGRの報酬は、BNB ChainのGovernanceにステーキングしているのと同じウォレットアドレスでFantomに請求する必要がありますが、収益の部分はBNB Chainにブリッジされて他の報酬と一緒に請求することができます。 収益分配の側面以外では、Governance Vaultの他のパラメータはチェーン間で同じになります。
収益分配の側面を除けば、Governance Vaultの他のパラメータはチェーン間で同じになります。
- 最小・最大ロック時間
- 早期離脱手数料
- 等しい議決権、Fantomの1xALPACA = BNBチェーンの1xALPACA
その根拠を以下に説明します。
- ALPACAを保有する価値とインセンティブを構築する：FantomにGovernance Vaultがなければ、チェーン上でALPACAの価値を構築することは困難です。ユーザーにとっては、BNBチ ェーンにブリッジバックして、ALPACAをステークするために新しいネットワークで自分自身をセットアップするすべてのステップを踏むよりも、ALPACAの報酬を売却する方が簡単で、これはすべての保有者の価格に悪影響を与えるでしょう。さらに、私たちのガバナンストークンを保有していないユーザーは、プロジェクトとの関係が弱くなり、Fantomや今後拡大する新しいチェーンで強力な群れを真に成長させることが難しくなってしまうのです。
- GRパートナ ーへの強力な価値提案：私たちの提案するオプションでは、Fantomユーザーへの露出に加え、パートナーはBNBチェーンユーザーへのアクセスを得ることができます。(BNB Chainのガバナンスボルトステーカーは、FantomでGRの報酬を請求する必要があり、Fantomに多くの新規ユーザーを呼び込み、GRパートナーに露出させることができます)。私たちは、このことが私たちのプログラムの価値提案を非常に強力なものにしていると信じています。Fantom上で多くの忠実なALPACAホルダーがいなければ、GRパートナーに我々のプログラムへの参加を説得することは難しく、それはALPACAホルダーの報酬が減り、トークンを保有する需要も減ることを意味するのです。
- 忠実なアーリーアダプターへの報酬：BNB Chainは私たちの発祥の地であり、ユーザーと忠実な仲間の強力なサポートなくしてここまで成長することはできませんでした。したがって、私たちが他のチェーンに拡大する際、収益の一部をアルパカの主要な運営基盤ともいえるBNB Chainの預金者に割り戻すのは公平なことです。また、BNBチェーンの預金者は、どのチェーンでロックアップするのがベストなのか悩むことなく、BNBチェーンでロックアップし、Fantomや他のチェーンから報酬が得られることを知ることができるのです。
絶対的な透明性と公平性を確保するために、2回に分けて投票を行うことにしました。
最初の投票：Fantomにガバナンスを追加すべきかどうかを決定する。
- コミュニティはFantomにガバナンスを設置することに賛成しました。
2回目の投票：最初の投票が可決されたので、Governance Vaultのしくみを決める投票を実施する。
- コミュニティは比例配分方式に賛成しました。
開発リソースを考慮し、まずはFantomにシンプルなGovernance Vaultを実装します（報酬の100%がFantomのGovernance Vaultの預金者に送られます）比例配分方式は、FantomのTVLがBNB Chainの15％以上になった時点で開始されます。（FantomのTVLがおよそ1億2,500万ドル、これより低いTVLでは、開発者の時間を非効率的に使ってしまうことになります）
We published an article last month on the early withdrawal feature for the Governance Vault Governance Vault Part 2 Is Here! Early Withdrawal, Governance & Insurance Plan! | by Huacayachief | Alpaca Finance | Jan, 2022 | Medium 8
In the article, we outlined the penalty structure for an early withdrawal:
- The penalty for early withdrawal will be 0.75% of the withdrawn amount per week of remaining locked time. ( There needs to be a sufficient penalty so that those who would consider early withdrawal could not game the mechanism by choosing a long lockup duration for higher APR, and then withdrawing early. )
Example:Alice wants to perform an early withdrawal of 100 locked ALPACA from the Governance Vault, but her position still has 65 days locked time remaining. Alice will have to pay:Penalty = 0.75% * roundup(65 / 7) = 7.5% of the withdrawn amountAnd she will receive: 100 ALPACA * (100% — 7.5%) = 92.5 ALPACA
How the penalty from early withdrawal above will be utilized is the focus of this discussion thread. In the article we proposed the following:
- 50% of the penalty will go towards weekly burn
- 50% will be distributed as rewards to the Governance Vault’s stakers in the following week.
Four voting choices were presented and users can vote by Ranked Choice Voting (IRV) Voting types - Snapshot 24
- Option1: 100% to burn
- Option2: 75% to burn 25% to stakers
- Option3: 50% to burn 50% to stakers
- Option4: 25% to burn 75% to stakers
- Option5: 100% to stakers
Community voted for Option#3 (50% to burn 50% to stakers)
With WaultSwap’s migration and tokenomics change that took place in Q3 last year, we have deprecated our LYF integration with the platform and disabled new positions from being opened. Despite warnings and recommendations for users to close their positions, there are still 100+ active LYF positions on WaultSwap.
As liquidity in these LP pools decreases and debt value continues to accrue from borrowing interest, while the positions no longer earns yields, these positions pose higher risk of bad debt.
Several days ago, one such event occurred and incurred ~$12k USDT in bad debt. This happened because the LYF position is large relative to the underlying liquidity in the pool. When liquidation happened, a part of the LP must be swapped back to the borrowed asset (in this case from TUSD → USDT) but because there isn’t much liquidity in the pool, the swap caused a large price impact resulting in a much lower amount of USDT received and bad debt.
We would like to propose two independent votes to handle this issue:
First Vote: (AIP-4.1)
Yes or No on the activation of Alpaca Insurance Plan as outlined here: [Security - Alpaca Finance] (https://docs.alpacafinance.org/our-protocol-1/security#alpaca-insurance-plan)
- If activated, 50% of the platform’s earnings would be directed to cover the $12k bad debt (which will be deposited back into the USDT pool.)
- ALPACA governance stakers will still receive ALPACA emission rewards, Grazing Range rewards, and 50% of Protocol Revenue.
- Once the bad debt is covered, 100% of the platform’s revenue will go back to Governance Vault’s stakers as usual.
- Based on the current revenue run rate and structure above, it should take ~2 weeks to cover bad debt.
Community voted to activate the insurance plan.
With WaultSwap’s migration and tokenomics change that took place in Q3 last year, we have deprecated our LYF integration with the platform and disabled new positions from being opened. Despite warnings and recommendations for users to close their positions, there are still 100+ active LYF positions on WaultSwap.
As liquidity in these LP pools decreases and debt value continues to accrue from borrowing interest, while the positions no longer earns yields, these positions pose higher risk of bad debt.
Several days ago, one such event occurred and incurred ~$24k USDT in bad debt. This happened because the LYF position is large relative to the underlying liquidity in the pool. When liquidation happened, a part of the LP must be swapped back to the borrowed asset (in this case from TUSD → USDT) but because there isn’t much liquidity in the pool, the swap caused a large price impact resulting in a much lower amount of USDT received and bad debt.
We would like to propose two independent votes to handle this issue:
Second Vote: (AIP-4.2)
- Yes or No to close all remaining WaultSwap’s positions and return funds to users to prevent future bad debt cases.
As of March 19th, there are 113 positions with total debt of $140k USD
Below please find the implementation plan:
- 1.We will upgrade the WaultSwap farming contract to allow for a privileged address (i.e., dev controlled address) to liquidate any WaultSwap’s positions (only for WaultSwap. No change to PCS or MDEX positions.)
- 2.We will change the liquidation method. Instead of swapping non-borrowed token in the DEX (this is the cause of bad debt due to low liquidity), we will use oracle price and let the new liquidation strategy deduct the necessary amount from our wallet as determined by the Oracle with a 5% discount.
- 3.Farming positions will now have all base assets and be able to pay back debt and close the positions
- 4.Any remaining value after debt repayment is sent back to users
In Step #2, Alpaca Core team will provide the liquidity required to close the positions. We will then manually swap them in CEX or other DEX to get back stablecoin. If there is any profit after, we will use them to buyback ALPACA and burn. Note: Some tokens e.g., MATIC no longer has DEX liquidity on BNB Chain and must be traded on CEX.
Community voted to close all the remaining positions
When we first launched Alpaca in March of 2021, the market was in a strong bull run.
It was a different environment with high speculative demand and higher yields. BNB Chain yields on DEXes (without leverage) were in the range of 50% - 100% APR for most pools. However, these yields dropped over time as more capital entered the market and farm tokens like CAKE depreciated in price.
Today, all the major farms have yields below 15% APR (as of 29th Mar 2022)
PCS BNB-USDT: 15.01%
PCS BNB-BUSD: 13.94%
MDEX BNB-BUSD: 10.31%
MDEX ETH-USDT: 13.31%
What does this mean for our interest model? The 20% rate in slope2 is too high for the current yield environment and there will be very few borrowers at 20%. It’s just not profitable to do leveraged yield farming at that borrowing rate.
As a result, lending pools’ utilization rarely rises above ~40% (borrowing interest = 15% @ 40% utilization) This was evidenced in the major pools where utilization was hovering between 30% - 40% prior to Automated Vault’s launch.This leaves a lot of unborrowed capital on the sidelines, which also means lower APY for lenders.
We believe a more efficient “equilibrium” could be achieved by lowering the borrowing interest at slope2, which will create higher utilization while still maintaining the same, or even higher revenue, to the lenders.
Example:
State | Supply (USD) | Borrowed (USD) | Borrowing Interest Rate | Annual Interest paid (USD) | Lenders APR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
State1 | 100 | 30 | 10% | 3 | 3% |
State2 | 100 | 50 | 9% | 4.5 | 4.5% |
As seen in the simple illustrative example above, with higher utilization, borrowers enjoy lower borrowing interest (10% → 9%) while lenders also earn higher yields (3% → 4.5%)
The question then is: how do we ensure there will be an increase in borrowing demand to increase utilization, compensating for the lower interest rate?
While the core team has discussed this issue internally in the past, the question above is one of the reasons we have not lowered Slope2 borrowing interest until now. There was no guarantee that with a shift in the interest model, there would be a corresponding increase in the borrowing demand.
With no new borrowing demand, lenders and our protocol would end up with less revenue, which could lead to lending deposit withdrawal, potentially creating a vicious cycle where the protocol lost significant TVL.
In fact, we tried with this back in Q3 of 2021 where we moved the Slope2 starting point from 50% utilization to 60% utilization to try to incentivize borrowers to open more positions, but it had no perceptible impact, and we didn’t pursue it further.
With the introduction of Automated Vaults, the situation has changed. We have seen a strong demand from the community for Automated Vaults, with the TVL cap for each 8x pool reached within a few hours of launch.
So with Automated Vaults, we now have high confidence that we could move our system to a higher utilization state where all the participants in the ecosystem will benefit.
Adjusting the interest model would achieve five major benefits:
- Higher APY for lenders
- Lower borrowing interest rate for borrowers
- Higher protocol revenue
- Additional capacity for our Automated Vaults
- Higher lending utilization which provides more platform stability
We propose the following target interest models for each asset:
Slope2 Kink: utilization at which Slope2 begins
Slope2 Interest: the borrowing interest rate for Slope2 (the flat part)
Asset | Slope2 kink | Slope2 interest | Lend APYs at Slope2 |
|---|---|---|---|
BNB | 85% | 12.5% | ~ 10% - 12% |
BUSD | 85% | 12.5% | ~ 10% - 12% |
USDT | 85% | 12.5% | ~ 10% - 12% |
BTC | 85% | 7.5% | ~ 6% - 7% |
ETH | 85% | 7.5% | ~ 6% - 7% |
USDC | 85% | 10.0% | ~ 8% - 10% |
As seen above, if we can raise the utilization to Slope2 portion of the model, lenders would also benefit from higher lending APY%
We would not make this implementation in one go, but rather adjust the slope gradually for each token each time we add a new instance of an Automated Vault. This way, we can ensure that lenders and platform revenue will not be adversely affected by a change. The core team will have the discretion to adjust interest models within the boundary above. For example, slope2 kink for BNB will never be beyond 85% and the slope2 interest rate will not be set below 12.5%.
The diagram below illustrates how the interest slope will change. The specific parameters will be based on various parameters at the time - e.g., TVL, APR, etc.
- Community voted to adjust interest model
Due to strong demand for Automated Vaults and potentially limited capacity, some community members have requested that the core team put up some sort of limitation on who can invest in the Automated Vaults.
Based on the current pool’s APR and liquidity, we estimate that an additional ~200 Mn TVL can be accepted by the Automated Vaults at current metrics. While this number is not small, we believe that the demand will be higher, given a good track record so far of the vaults’ performance and the current market conditions.
By limiting access to certain Automated Vaults, we can add value to the Alpaca ecosystem and give privileged access to valued community members. So far, we have launched 3x and 8x Automated Vaults. Their characteristics have several differences (APY, Sharpe Ratio, max drawdown.) Depending on their goals, investors can choose a vault that is more suitable for them. So far though, the 8x vault has been more popular given its higher APY. And because of its higher leverage, the capacity gets filled up quickly, recently within minutes of launch.
Given the facts above, after an internal discussion, we are proposing categorizing Automated Vaults into two groups and limiting their access as follows:
- Low-Leverage Vaults: allow public access to <= 4x Automated Vaults
- High-Leverage Vaults: limit access for > 4x pools Automated Vaults to only xALPACA holders
While we have only offered 3x and 8x automated vaults so far, in the future, we could potentially offer other leverage -e.g, 4x, 5x, etc., vaults on LP pairs with lower underlying yields such that the APY is comparable to the higher yield pool such as BNB-USDT. Our goal is to keep the Vault’s APY roughly the same across different LP pools to minimize decision making / rotation for users to seek higher yield, which would cost gas and swap fees.
Only xALPACA holders will be able to invest in the high-leverage vaults. The max amount a user can invest in all pools will correspond to the xALPACA balance they have. We propose a linear & dynamic allocation quota as described below:
Linear: the more xALPACA you hold, the higher allocation you get:
Example:
2 xALPACA = $1 total allocation across all high-leverage vaults.
- Example: Alice has 10,000 xALPACA, she is entitled to invest up to $5,000 USD across all high-leverage vaults.
- For clarity, this means that Alice, for example, can invest $2,000 in on high-leverage vault, $500 in another vault, and $2,500 in another vault etc. But overall when all her investments across all the high-leverage vaults are summed up, they cannot exceed $5,000.
- The allocation is counted against the current value of the investment and not the cost-basis. So as the investment appreciates in value, it takes up additional allocation.
Dynamic: ratio will be adjusted periodically based on ALPACA price.
- Example: current ratio is 2xALPACA = $1 allocation. ALPACA price increases by 100%, the new ration becomes 1xALPACA = $1 allocation, maintaining a constant $ ratio allocation.
Other Implementation Notes:
- The allocation refers to equity value. So $1 allocation means you can supply $1 worth of asset to have $8 TVL in the vault (for 8x vault)
- We will track the amount invested in each vault’s smart contract (and not # of share token in the wallet.) So users cannot game the system by transferring the token out of their wallets to gain additional allocation.
- xALPACA balance will be determined in real-time (or weekly snapshot pending implementaion challenges), on-chain, at the time of the investment
- It would add considerable implementation effort to account for cross-chain xALPACA balance, so the initial implementation will only be for BNB Chain stakers for access to high-leverage vaults on BNB Chain.
- While this topic is in discussion, we will pause opening new high leverage vaults until the implementation of this proposal is completed (if passed.) Lower leverage vaults will continue to be added on a regular basis if the capacity is full in all the active vaults.
- The estimated time for implementation is 2-3 weeks (once we add it to the sprint) If passed, you can expect it to go live towards the end of May.
- We can’t do anything with the existing investors in the current high leverage vaults. However, once they withdraw, they can only invest back again if they meet the criteria.
For absolute clarity and fairness, we will do a series of two votes for this AIP. This is the first vote in the series of two votes.
First Vote: To determine if we should limit the access to high-leverage vaults to xALPACA holders. This will be a simple YES or NO vote.
Second Vote: If the first vote passes, we will then have a second vote to determine the parameters for limiting access to the vaults.
- Community votes to limit the access to high-leverage vaults to xALPACA holders
Due to strong demand for Automated Vaults and potentially limited capacity, some community members have requested that the core team put up some sort of limitation on who can invest in the Automated Vaults.
Based on the current pool’s APR and liquidity, we estimate that an additional ~200 Mn TVL can be accepted by the Automated Vaults at current metrics. While this number is not small, we believe that the demand will be higher, given a good track record so far of the vaults’ performance and the current market conditions.
By limiting access to certain Automated Vaults, we can add value to the Alpaca ecosystem and give privileged access to valued community members. So far, we have launched 3x and 8x Automated Vaults. Their characteristics have several differences (APY, Sharpe Ratio, max drawdown.) Depending on their goals, investors can choose a vault that is more suitable for them. So far though, the 8x vault has been more popular given its higher APY. And because of its higher leverage, the capacity gets filled up quickly, recently within minutes of launch.
Given the facts above, after an internal discussion, we are proposing categorizing Automated Vaults into two groups and limiting their access as follows:
- Low-Leverage Vaults: allow public access to <= 4x Automated Vaults
- High-Leverage Vaults: limit access for > 4x pools Automated Vaults to only xALPACA holders
While we have only offered 3x and 8x automated vaults so far, in the future, we could potentially offer other leverage -e.g, 4x, 5x, etc., vaults on LP pairs with lower underlying yields such that the APY is comparable to the higher yield pool such as BNB-USDT. Our goal is to keep the Vault’s APY roughly the same across different LP pools to minimize decision making / rotation for users to seek higher yield, which would cost gas and swap fees.
Only xALPACA holders will be able to invest in the high-leverage vaults. The max amount a user can invest in all pools will correspond to the xALPACA balance they have. We propose a linear & dynamic allocation quota as described below:
Linear: the more xALPACA you hold, the higher allocation you get:
Example:
2 xALPACA = $1 total allocation across all high-leverage vaults.
- Example: Alice has 10,000 xALPACA, she is entitled to invest up to $5,000 USD across all high-leverage vaults.
- For clarity, this means that Alice, for example, can invest $2,000 in on high-leverage vault, $500 in another vault, and $2,500 in another vault etc. But overall when all her investments across all the high-leverage vaults are summed up, they cannot exceed $5,000.
- The allocation is counted against the current value of the investment and not the cost-basis. So as the investment appreciates in value, it takes up additional allocation.
Dynamic: ratio will be adjusted periodically based on ALPACA price.
- Example: current ratio is 2xALPACA = $1 allocation. ALPACA price increases by 100%, the new ration becomes 1xALPACA = $1 allocation, maintaining a constant $ ratio allocation.
Other Implementation Notes:
- The allocation refers to equity value. So $1 allocation means you can supply $1 worth of asset to have $8 TVL in the vault (for 8x vault)
- We will track the amount invested in each vault’s smart contract (and not # of share token in the wallet.) So users cannot game the system by transferring the token out of their wallets to gain additional allocation.
- xALPACA balance will be determined in real-time (or weekly snapshot pending implementaion challenges), on-chain, at the time of the investment
- It would add considerable implementation effort to account for cross-chain xALPACA balance, so the initial implementation will only be for BNB Chain stakers for access to high-leverage vaults on BNB Chain.
- While this topic is in discussion, we will pause opening new high leverage vaults until the implementation of this proposal is completed (if passed.) Lower leverage vaults will continue to be added on a regular basis if the capacity is full in all the active vaults.
- The estimated time for implementation is 2-3 weeks (once we add it to the sprint) If passed, you can expect it to go live towards the end of May.
- We can’t do anything with the existing investors in the current high leverage vaults. However, once they withdraw, they can only invest back again if they meet the criteria.
For absolute clarity and fairness, we will do a series of two votes for this AIP. This is the second vote in the series of two votes.
Second Vote: The first vote passed. We are now having a second vote to determine the parameters for limiting access to the vaults.
Based on the discussion and feedback so far, and in an effort to move this proposal forward in a reasonable time, I would like to propose that we lock in some of the mechanisms below:
- Allocation will be across all high-leverage vaults
- Linear Allocation
- Dynamics ratio, adjusted on a monthly basis at the beginning of each month. - To prevent manipulation, we will use TWAP of ALPACA for the 1 week prior to the ratio adjustment.
- Voting will be on setting the xALPACA allocation ratio only.
Option1: $1.0 worth of ALPACA locked for $1 allocation
Option2: $1.5 worth of ALPACA locked for $1 allocation
Option3: $2.0 worth of ALPACA locked for $1 allocation
Option4: $2.5 worth of ALPACA locked for $1 allocation
Option5: $3.0 worth of ALPACA locked for $1 allocation.
For example, with ALPACA current price of $0.66, option#1 would require $1 / $0.66 = 1.5 xALPACA for $1 allocation. option#2 would require $1.5 / 0.66 = 2.30xALPACA for $1 allocation.
- Community voted for Option#1 ($1.0 worth of ALPACA locked for $1 allocation)
During the last week’s market correction, Alpaca Finance platform incurred some bad debt in Fantom network. This was due to a combination of rapid price decrease, network congestion and unresponsive node on the Fantom network, causing delay in liquidation.
The total amount of bad debt is 62,471 FTM or ~23k USD (at current FTM price) which represents about ~2% of the total amount of FTM liquidated.
Since the amount is higher than 10k USD, we are putting this up for a discussion to activate the insurance plan to cover bad debt for FTM lenders.
Community voted to activate Insurance plan
In March, we announced multiple improvements to AUSD 3 including a move of the AUSD liquidity pool to Ellipsis and an allocation of dev fund to AUSD peg insurance.
We now would like to propose adding AUSD as another mechanism for access to high-leveraged Automated Vault.
By granting access to high-leveraged Automated Vaults to AUSD holders, we will increase its utility and demand for holding AUSD, which would help support the AUSD peg and its adoption.
The implementation will follow a similar pattern as xALPACA, with the following details:
(Please note that this proposal will provide an additional method for accessing high-leveraged AVs. xALPACA holders will continue to receive access as per AIP-6 resolution.)
Locked tokens: users will need to stake Ellipsis’s AUSD3EPS LP token for access to high-leveraged AVs. This option will provide the highest capital efficiency for our users as they will continue to earn yields from trading fees. The locked LP tokens will also be staked in the FairLaunch contract on users’ behalf to continue receiving ALPACA rewards
Staked duration: user can choose the lock duration between 1 - 52 weeks. Similar to Governance vault, the longer the duration, the higher allocation they will receive.
Allocation: We propose a similar structure to xALPACA where $x worth of LP tokens locked for 1 year to receive $1 dollar of allocation in the high-leveraged AVs. The community will vote on what the $x should be.
Since users can add any combination of tokens in the AUSD3EPS LP token, we will limit the total AUSD that can be borrowed if the price falls below a pre-determined threshold. This would force users who want access to either add other stablecoins in the pool (e.g., BUSD, USDT, etc.) or purchase AUSD from open market to add to the pool. Both of these actions would help increase AUSD price to the peg.
For absolute clarity and fairness, we will do a series of two votes for this AIP. This is the first vote in the series of two votes.
First Vote: To determine if we should extend the access to high-leverage vaults to AUSD3EPS LP token holders. This will be a simple YES or NO vote.
Second Vote: If the first vote passes, we will then have a second vote to determine the parameters for limiting access to the vaults.
- Community votes to increase AUSD utility by providing access to high-leveraged AVs
In March, we announced multiple improvements to AUSD 3 including a move of the AUSD liquidity pool to Ellipsis and an allocation of dev fund to AUSD peg insurance.
We now would like to propose adding AUSD as another mechanism for access to high-leveraged Automated Vault.
By granting access to high-leveraged Automated Vaults to AUSD holders, we will increase its utility and demand for holding AUSD, which would help support the AUSD peg and its adoption.
The implementation will follow a similar pattern as xALPACA, with the following details:
(Please note that this proposal will provide an additional method for accessing high-leveraged AVs. xALPACA holders will continue to receive access as per AIP-6 resolution.)
Locked tokens: users will need to stake Ellipsis’s AUSD3EPS LP token for access to high-leveraged AVs. This option will provide the highest capital efficiency for our users as they will continue to earn yields from trading fees. The locked LP tokens will also be staked in the FairLaunch contract on users’ behalf to continue receiving ALPACA rewards
Staked duration: user can choose the lock duration between 1 - 52 weeks. Similar to Governance vault, the longer the duration, the higher allocation they will receive.
Allocation: We propose a similar structure to xALPACA where $x worth of LP tokens locked for 1 year to receive $1 dollar of allocation in the high-leveraged AVs. The community will vote on what the $x should be.
Since users can add any combination of tokens in the AUSD3EPS LP token, we will limit the total AUSD that can be borrowed if the price falls below a pre-determined threshold. This would force users who want access to either add other stablecoins in the pool (e.g., BUSD, USDT, etc.) or purchase AUSD from open market to add to the pool. Both of these actions would help increase AUSD price to the peg.
For absolute clarity and fairness, we will do a series of two votes for this AIP. This is the second vote in the series of two votes.
First Vote: The first vote has passed.
Second Vote:This is the second vote to determine the parameters for limiting access to the vaults.
This vote will be done through Ranked choice Voting as described below:
Ranked choice voting (IRV)
Each voter may rank any number of choices. Votes are initially counted for each voter's top choice. If a candidate has more than half of the vote based on first-choices, that choice wins. If not, then the choice with the fewest votes is eliminated. The voters who selected the defeated choice as a first choice then have their votes added to the totals of their next choice. This process continues until a choice has more than half of the votes. When the field is reduced to two, it has become an "instant runoff" that allows a comparison of the top two choice head-to-head.
Option1: $1.0 worth of AUSD3EPS locked for $1 allocation (same as xALPACA)
Option2: $1.5 worth of AUSD3EPS locked for $1 allocation
Option3: $2.0 worth of AUSD3EPS locked for $1 allocation
Option4: $2.5 worth of AUSD3EPS locked for $1 allocation
Option5: $3.0 worth of AUSD3EPS locked for $1 allocation.
Option6. $3.5 worth of AUSD3EPS locked for $1 allocation.
Option7. $4.0 worth of AUSD3EPS locked for $1 allocation.
- Community votes for Option#1 (#1.0 worth of AUSD3EPS locked for $1 allocation)
Last modified 1d ago