/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>29158377
Fees ALONE currently outpace IL protection costs by a huge margin, pic related. This was from before Bancor Vortex, which is supposed to drive even higher fees through the protocol from people using/staking/arbing with vBNT.

>>29005162
Btw if anyone is curious, pic related is a graph of fees generated on the platform vs cost of IL loss protection on the platform.

Lot's of people get skittish about BNT thinking there is no way they can pay people IL protection, but fees outpace the cost of it by over 5x. Bancor Vortex should further increase this revenue to the protocol.

>>28630703
Impermanent loss protection covers stakers from impermanent loss (value of your stake going down due to fluctuations in price ratio between the staked pair). It is paid for by the protocol with fees collected from users, so the 100 day vesting period is to ensure that fees collected will offset the cost of your impermanent loss. Genius system, really.

Fees are currently far above the cost of IL (see pic), so so far it has proven to be 100% sustainable.

>>28481332
30% coverage starting on day 30, 1%/day until 100% after that. Fees fund it, and outpace expenses for IL protection by...a lot. pic related.

500m liquidity reached! How long do you guys think 1B will take from here?

Few pieces of info I gathered incoming

Part 1: Fees are 5x what they need to be to pay for impermanent loss protection. This is BEFORE Bancor Vortex, which should allocate fees even better. Vortex just passed the governance vote.

Fees which are used to fund the impermanent loss protection are outpacing the cost of IL by >5x