I think that posting images like these will only contribute to the loss of credibility of this proposal. Instead, it would be more productive to build a solid proposal that outlines the real reason why we should stop paying this tax, starting with the fact that we are not directly refunding those affected, but rather refunding the pool itself, so anyone who came as a lender after the event is given free money, that to me doesn’t make sense.
All this information are there. I would recommend reading the proposal in detail 
You are right the porposal has been updated, my bad. That just shows how your images are distracting 
.
I wonder why there is no team member to respond this proposal. I noticed that it had 17 likes and lots of comments. In other words, what is the standard that could push a proposal to an AIP?
Even I don’t agree this proposal, I think it should be an AIP now since so many people like this idea.
Because it requires time to reply properly 
Good prospal! We need 1 option!
Hi everyone. Thank you for your comments and discussions on the topic of the stkBNB bad debt repayment so far. The team has discussed and we want to share our thoughts below:
-
We believe the scope of this discussion should be limited to the revoting / adjustment on the debt repayment for the specific stkBNB event on account of the current market condition and the fact that it wasn’t technically Alpaca Finance’s fault. The Insurance Plan structure itself should be kept as is.
-
Of the options discussed so far, we believe reducing the % of repayment from 50% → 25-33% is the most reasonable. A lower % than that would make the repayment time too long and our Insurance Plan will have no marketing power as a support structure for lenders. Safety is one of Alpaca’s Finance main value proposition to the users and we believe the insurance plan pays an important role in the decision making process for lenders deploying capital on our platform.
-
To offset point#2 and also increase the yields of Gov Vault, we can redirect a portion of Burn to Gov vault to help boost the staking APR%. Please note that we already do this to some extent for AF2.0 where 6% (of the 19%) of the lending performance fees goes to Gov vault. We could apply the same structure on AF1.0 as well. Given there is no new ALPACA emission, the token will always be in deflationary and reducing the burn portion slightly wouldn’t have a big impact. We believe this is a good middle road approach.
** Please note that point #3 can also technically be voted independently regardless of how we decide to deal with the bad debt issue.
- We will give time thru mid next week for additional feedbacks before we make this topic into an AIP.
As a final note, we are making a quick model on how changing some of these parameters will impact the Governance APY% and the debt repayment timeline. We will share it soon, so the community can make a more informed decision.
Our preliminary proposed voting structure will be as follow:
(This can be modified based on feedback from the community)
Vote#1: Whether to make changes to the stkBNB bad debt repayment
This will be a simple yes or no vote whether to make adjustment to the bad debt repayment structure associated with stkBNB
- A Yes would lead to vote#2
- A No would leave the repayment as is
Vote#2: How to implement the changes
This will be a single choice voting.
- Reducing repayment % taken from Gov Vault. (If this wins, we will have vote#3.1)
- Do a one-time payment (at a discount) to affected wallets using reserve that haven’t gone to burn (if this wins, we will have a vote #3.2)
- Stop Repayment
Vote#3.1 Changing % payment to bad debt
This will be a single choice voting, where we will vote on how many % should be taken from the Gov Vault instead of the current 50% - e.g., 25% 33% 40%, etc.
Vote#3.2 One-time payment
This vote(s) would be on where to source the payment from, and the total amoun to pay
Vote#4 Aligning AF1.0 lending performance fee to AF2.0’s structure
(This can also be a vote in another independent AIP)
This will be a yes / no voting on whether to change the AF1.0 lending performance fee structure to align w/ that of the AF2.0
- A Yes vote would direct 6% of the 19% towards Gov Vault
- A No vote would leave the fee distribution structure as is
Thanks for getting back to us! It’s good to see the team is willing to #freealpaca
We’ll do our best to provide feedback, but overall the direction of travel seems sensible and appreciated
I have created a model to show how adjusting the % for repayment and including AF1.0 lending performance fee would impact the Gov Vault APR% and the estimated repayment duration:
always check for tooltips
Ahhh thanks…
Few questions then:
-
so does it mean all values are to be discounted by 2-3% to get a more realistic APY figure?
-
if we went from eg 50m locked alpacas to 60m (+20%) would the APY% decrease in the same proportion (eg from 25% to 20%)?
-
would it be possible to add 25% tax in the model? From speaking to people that’s what most would prefer to vote for
-
where we talk about AF1.0 lending performance, is that what was mentioned in the previous post regarding redirecting 6% of the perf fees to gov stakers instead of burn?
Nice diagram! 0% has good optics too though.
So does it mean all values are to be discounted by 2-3% to get a more realistic APY figure?
- The figure shown is based on the April’s average actual. Actual value can go up / down based on actual usage. For example, if AF2.0 gets more TVL and borrowing, then APR% would go up.
if we went from eg 50m locked alpacas to 60m (+20%) would the APY% decrease in the same proportion (eg from 25% to 20%)?
- Yes, assuming those ALPACA is locked at 1 yr.
would it be possible to add 25% tax in the model? From speaking to people that’s what most would prefer to vote for
- Added
where we talk about AF1.0 lending performance, is that what was mentioned in the previous post regarding redirecting 6% of the perf fees to gov stakers instead of burn?
- Correct.
Do you know how long until we repay lenders bad debt (at 50% rate)?
There is a model I made to estimate that. You can scroll up and you will see it.
Are we waiting for AIP-19 to end? Whats next?
As mentioned in my post. Waiting for feedback through midweek this week. I will put it up as AIP-20 on Wednesday (tomorrow.)