/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>29928517
you start at 1x, going up by .25x every week until 2x.

If you put 1000 bnt into a pool, on week 4 your rewards are 2x. If you withdraw from a pool or withdraw your rewards, it resets ALL pools back to 1x, but when that pool that reset the multiplier back to 1x gets back to 2x, all pools that were affected are retroactively brought back to 2x rewards.

Restaking rewards does not reset the multiplier.

>>29740279
>once LM program is completed, it won't be as profitable to keep money in Bancor.
It won't be as proftiable since the rewards are an incentive to attract more liquidity. But more liquidity also means more fees, so I assume that providing liquidity will still be attractive in the future.

>what if there are not enough fees for my staked LINK to cover the IL?
To quote the latest health report from January (https://blog.bancor.network/bancor-v2-1-protocol-health-report-january-2020-83338c904de0):
>Total impermanent loss associated with withdrawn protected liquidity: 41K BNT or $64,000 USD
>Fees earned by the protocol and BNT liquidity providers during the same period: 350K BNT or $560,000 USD

>>29474469
I say you haven't grasped the basics because you a) missed the entire reward program b) you don't appear to understand the typical liquidity farming lifecycle where rewards are outsized at first ("artificially pumping") to attract liquidity and are slowly replaced by fees as volume grows. Will APRs decrease over time? Yes, obviously, they always do. The fact that you're bringing this up (>>29473388) like some gotcha moment tells me you aren't familiar with this space or you're arguing in bad faith.

>>29477441
This is why napkin math is not sufficient to judge anything. For starters, your reply is looking at the January report which had some like $5m in annualized fees gathered, and in the February update that became $20m (https://blog.bancor.network/bancor-monthly-progress-update-february-2021-685e174f6537).). TVL hsa more than doubled since that Feb update.

In order for the death spiral to start, you need LINK to 5x while BNT remains stagnant, bot arbitrageurs do nothing during this time to balance the pools, fees somehow do not also increase during this time, the majority of LINK positions withdraw almost simultaneously, the Bancor DAO does nothing to mitigate, after extensive 2.1 beta testing shows that fees cover potential IL. Fee gathering is why LPs have to provide for 100 days in exchange for the insurance. In exchange for the possibility, however unlikely, that this happens, BNT holder recoup very large farming yields.

There's a lot of focus on LINK in this scenario since people think that native link staking will show up and destroy all the LINK LPs out there. That could actually be (and likely is) years away. LinkPool will get staking far before LINK does. Who knows how Bancor will have evolved by then?

Thanks for coming to my ted talk

>>29356520
Yup. Fees pay for it. Pic related.

>>28781955
My position is already in pure profit (300 more BNT than my staked, not to mention price appreciation of BNT) even without IL protection

Making $400 a day staking this. Comfy as it gets.

>>28213669
Pic related also shows that fees are outpacing the cost of IL protection by a large margin