Same vaults, but different results?

1

Team, hello! I have a question. I see two vaults. Long, Bitcoin, 3 leverage. Here they are.

shot_220915_131701
shot_220915_1317011174×572 68.4 KB

BTCB Savings (3x)Public
BUSD-BTCB PancakeSwap
L3x-BUSDBTCB-PCS1

and

BTCB Savings (3x)Public
BUSD-BTCB PancakeSwap
L3x-BUSDBTCB-PCS2

Both vaults have similar parameters. Why are the results so different?

shot_220915_194813
shot_220915_194813807×615 49.3 KB

and
2
2813×627 46.1 KB

2

Hi Zaza.

While each vault run under the same parameters, the results could be different depending on the initial conditions of the vault. Let me give you an example.

It could be the case that Vault#1 receives a new investment (deposit) into the vault that causes its debt ratio to get back closer to the ideal target. So then after the same price price movement, vault#2 gets rebalanced while vault#1 didn’t get triggered. If price then reverted back, it could cause out performance on the vault#1.

You can see that the 2nd vault has poorer performance due to the higher number of rebalances.

The good news is that our repurchase pilot is going well and so far showing good results. These issues will go away as we will no longer require rebalance and the vaults performance should be more inline with one another.

1 Like
3

Did I understand you correctly? Vault performs rebalancing in the following cases:

  1. When the user deposits money into the vault;
  2. During the reinvestment of the harvest;
  3. When the user takes money from the vault.
    Right?
4

Hi Zaza,

Vault rebalances if one of the position’s debt ratio is beyond the threshold set. However, when a user deposits, the new assets are added into the existing positions such that the overall debt ratio get closer to the ideal value. Hence, less likely for it to get rebalance on the same price move vs. another vault that didn’t receive the deposit.

Similar logic apply for withdrawal and reinvest.

5

Thanks for the reply.

If I understood correctly, then a mistake has been made.

Mistake #1: Keep two vaults for one PancakeSwap pool.

These two vaults run on the same PancakeSwap pool. Am I right?

e5985799d569caf50e90468be745fb20c75266f5_2_690x336

Why is this a mistake? Because the more often investors enter and exit vault, the more they help to do balancing.

1 vault and 100 inputs/outputs? Or 2 vaults with 50 inputs/outputs each? If I understand correctly, then the first option is better.

To fix the error, you need to somehow combine the pools into one. This will improve returns for investors.

huacayachief, am I reasoning correctly? If there is a mistake, are you going to fix it?

6

Hi Zaza.

It’s not a mistake. The 2nd vault was created because we must cap the size of each vault. Otherwise, we would incur a large price impact when making a swap when rebalancing.

We launched the PCS2 pool after L3x-BUSDBTCB-PCS1 was full at the time.

I am not sure if you have read our improvement plan for AVs here: Automated Vaults Improvement Plan | by Huacayachief | Alpaca Finance | Aug, 2022 | Medium which will solve the problem.

We are currently piloting the repurchasing method on several vaults and will be rolling them out to all the vaults when ready.