Proposal to Whitelist LPL on Bancor

Hey folks,

There’s been a lot of scattered chat about a Bancor whitelisting proposal for the LPL token, so I’m starting a thread about it here in order to formalize the effort and involve the greater community in the process.

For context, Bancor is currently the most liquid exchange for trading LPL, with liquidity hovering just under $4 million at the time of this post. A whitelisted status for LPL will allow interested token holders to provide single-sided liquidity to the dex and will afford liquidity providers the option of protection from impermanent loss. More information about these features can be found here: The V2.1 Difference - Bancor Network

In order to secure a whitelisted status the community must put forth a proposal, beginning with a post on the Bancor governance forum. More information on the whitelist application process can be found here: How to Whitelist a Token on Bancor v2.1 | by Bancor | Medium

If someone has already started on a draft of the proposal, please feel free to share what you have so far so that others may contribute and vet as needed.

4 Likes

Welcome to our Discourse forum @dakotadetected, it’s really nice to see you here as well!

Congratulations for your initiative Dakota, I find this Bancor whitelisting proposal idea very interesting and a first step in the search for DeFi composability. As you know, the team will not pursue CEX listing or provide liquidity to DEXs or AMMs, but seeing this kind of effort being born within the community is really nice. I look forward to seeing how this initiative develops!

3 Likes

Hi everyone…

It’s best to have LPLA instead being whitelisted since majority of the token is staked.

I have asked the Bancor team and this is the format of the proposal.

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1PE39vDz6uefxvibEtESGTdU2pUnqfmT0wpiqZscbf3w/mobilebasic


They also would like us to join the Dischord to see how the Bancor community response to this idea.

3 Likes

Whitelisting need 40% quorum and I know some BNT stakers don’t like to whitelist everything since the risk goes to the protocol, so I would assume LPL would be a better pool to start and get the ball moving. There’s a lot of volume so far so that’s usually the main driver (and community engagement) to when it comes to getting a whitelisted so I think there’s a decent shot we could get approved. We might have to up the pool fee but I’m sure others can decide if that’d be better for our chances.

A lot of the Bancor community are behind Linkpool (we obvious know a lot of Bancor liquidity providers are people who’ve been in Link for a long time) but with no staking yet part of me thinks it’s better to wait to whitelist LPLA until we can put them to use in Linkpool, and see the demand stack up then. I wouldn’t want to put both up for a vote in the same proposal and be rejected because people aren’t sure of what to do with LPLA yet, or uninformed voters vote no and just assume everything is a cash grab against the Bancor protocol, which is a narrative we’ve seen pushed around before from some big BNT stakers.

I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this though

4 Likes

I think is best to push for a LPL whitelist because the volume and the token use is easier to grasp for people new to linkpool. Once LPL is whitelisted and everything goes smooth we could push for a LPLA whitelist. Just my two cents

4 Likes

But by whitelisting LPLA, we will get both Bancor rewards and not missing out on LP rewards.

There are not many who want to split their LPL and miss LP rewards.

2 Likes

Thanks for your input, everyone.

This is a tricky one. I understand the logic of getting LPLA whitelisted first, and it absolutely should be at some point—it could provide users who wish to generate revenue on their spare LPLA another option to do so outside of the planned lending pool. However, considering LPL is the mainline and more actively traded token, has already established sizable liquidity and volume, and will have greater utility until Chainlink staking is released, I’d say that the clearest path forward would be to first have a LPL whitelisting as the launch pad, with a linkLPLA whitelisting to follow.

If liquidity and volume remain high after April 9 (at which point rewards will be claimable to LPL stakers), I think the notion that there is significant interest in liquidity provision and trading for the LPL token versus staking it for LinkPool rewards would be validated, especially when a liquidity provision based strategy may remain more lucrative than staking LPL while node rewards continue to be relatively low (based on past data) for the time being for the average LPL staker. This could also lay the groundwork for an arbitraging opportunity—perhaps at some point an equilibrium could be reached where revenue from LPing LPL would be roughly equal to the amount earned by staking LPL and claiming node rewards, since those node rewards are proportionally distributed to the amount of LPL staked.

I can certainly see that landscape changing as LPL staking rewards increase, and of course with the launch of LINK staking.

Having a whitelisted LPLA pool first could immediately benefit existing LPL stakers who want to generate some revenue on their LPLA before the lending pool is available, but that’s assuming the interest is there from buyers and traders, and I’m not aware of any trading currently happening for the LPLA token. When the community does decide to pursue a whitelisted status for LPLA, I think some infrastructure (so to speak) would need to be laid. Ideally, there would be at minimum an existing pool on Bancor or Uniswap (as the LPL token currently has) and a CoinGecko/CMC listing.

Even with all other points in favor of LPL over LPLA aside, I would argue Leonardo’s point to those in the LPLA camp; that the better move would be to build that foundation with LPL first so that the LinkPool ecosystem is arguably more accessible and therefore may accrue more social value (and in turn, potential monetary value). Staking LPL will provide LPLA, too, so there’s that aspect to consider from a new user’s perspective.

That all said, perhaps it’s worth waiting to present a proposal until after the April 9 grace period to see what kind of liquidity and volume LPL still has on Bancor. If those factors remain high, I think that would give credence to the idea that there is enough interest in liquidity provision for LPL, which could further strengthen a proposal to whitelist the token.

6 Likes

This is actually not a bad idea. As LPL get whitelisted, there might be new demand from the farmers or from the old holders who like to keep their LPLA stack and LPL-BNT stack seperate.

The Bancor community In Discord is welcoming LPL warmly.

I am compiling a simple proposal to be posted ASAP in Bancor governance. I will upload it for review if there is anything we need to add before we propose it.

4 Likes

Here is the draft to Bancor Whitelisting. I am using Sylvarant explanation to explain the project, since it is very well explained.

Please DM me your email address, so I could add you for editing the document.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1glXkHGt42K4zaHS4VYkXxco4gmpQGFJQCar1aWuirZI/edit?usp=sharing

5 Likes

Great piece. Thank you for taking the time.

What I definitely would point out in a specific section is, that linkpool $LPL would not add major risk to the bancor protocol itself. It should be highlighted in an easy and understandable way with reference to tokenomics.

3 Likes

Just wanted to say very proud of you all, and looks like great work so far. Nicely done coming together to get this sorted out, gang!

4 Likes

Thanks, everyone.

If anyone needed access to the document. Please kindly DM me your email address.

Thanks. I add a point under TL;DR section.


If the proposal looks good, then we shall proceed with posting it at Bancor governance. Bancor community in Discord are also very enthusiastic about the whitelist.

4 Likes

Posted or still under review?

3 Likes

Hey spidoodle, still under review.

Speaking of, thanks very much @permabulltard for getting this off the ground! I’ve made a few edits to the proposal, namely to flesh out the existing Project/Tokenomics/Security sections, add additional hyperlinks, and improve overall formatting. I’ll continue to work on this in my spare time as time allows.

One question that came up while editing—out of curiosity, what is the logic behind the 100,000 BNT co-investment? Wondering if this factor is worth running past the folks in the Bancor Discord or Liquidity Providers Telegram channel to see if this is an appropriate amount considering the pool’s current liquidity (if they haven’t provided input on it already).

Also, since it hasn’t been said yet, something else to consider once the community decides the proposal is ready is that we’ll need someone to stake 25,000 vBNT in order to put this up for a governance vote.

4 Likes

By the way, an in-depth guide on the creation and publication of new proposals as well as how to submit proposals to a vote on Snapshot was recently posted to the Bancor governance forum! Check it out: https://gov.bancor.network/t/a-guide-to-bancordao-due-process/1669

3 Likes

This is brilliant job @dacotadetected. I am thrilled.

We could remove this part and let the Bancor community decide. This is the number of BNT rewards for LINK pool.

3 Likes

This could be arranged, I believe. We have many Linkies/Poolies who are also heavy in Bancor and supporting this cause. Once the proposal is posted and the community agreed to it, the votes will most likely be passed.

4 Likes

Just an update.

Dacota and I have communicated intensely to get our ducks in a row before everything is finalized.

Majority of Bancor community is supporting this proposal since we are one of the top volumes.

I am thrilled to be part of this.

4 Likes

Hi everyone, we’re getting very close to completing the Bancor whitelisting proposal for the LPL token. As this is a community-organized effort (since the team will not be involved in listings), we’d love for you to help finalize it! Please consider taking a look at the current draft of the proposal below and if you have any feedback or suggested additions, please comment in the thread within the next 24-48 hours if possible.

You can find the draft here (same link posted earlier): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1glXkHGt42K4zaHS4VYkXxco4gmpQGFJQCar1aWuirZI/

Additionally, we can confirm that we have a vBNT sponsor from the LinkPool community who is willing to submit the proposal for a governance vote.

Thank you all for your contributions thus far!

4 Likes

I really enjoyed to read through this proposal.
It is well structured and gives an great overview of what LinkPool is and why it
is trustworthy to whitelist on Bancor.

I think Bancor considers themselves as a place for the small liquidity Providers and
as a part of day one after the ERC20 migritation we have some kind of history together.
It was the first place where small amounts of LPL where able to buy so it is even more better
to take the next step and take care of IL.

The thing I m thinking about is, how does a Bancor Pool or Uniswap Pool looks after “staking go live”?
Why should someone provides liquidity to those pools when they have the possibilities to lend out their LP allowance token? Will there be an “empty” pool because all the small holders stake their LPL on Linkpool to stake their Link?
This would be my question as a “Bancorian” whether this LPL/BNT is “only” a waiting room for “when staking”.

This doesn’t has to be addressed in the proposal but might pop out in the discussion for whitelisting inside Bancor community.

Again thank you for this well written proposal. I think we have a really good chance to get whitelisted because of it.

3 Likes