Detailed plan to compensate V1 users without issuing PERP

Are you sure about that? No compensation is pretty much like committing a suicide for Perp’s reputation. The market responded to your statement and has crashed below $0.6.

I trust the team/major stake holders would do the right thing and find a common solution to recover Perp value to its former glory. The trade off is obvious, it’s a small price for Perp’s long term success.

Wow great way to do correlation = causation. Eth price has tanked because of my comment as well. It’s not like all tokens are correlated to the price of ETH at all.

I got a chance to look further into the example given of a plan by bZx and tbh it does not look good.

The price of bZx’s P125 token is around 0.044 currently (it was issued at 1 P125 = $1 USD).
This means users either have to wait a very long time to receive their payout, or accept a massive reduction of their expected payout.

Speaking personally, I’m not confident that this proposal would benefit v1 users or be positive for the Perpetual DAO’s reputation. The only part I’m not sure about is the mention of “buying demand” here:

@habs4lyfe123 sir can you comment further?

@LeeKB thanks for the thoughtful post here.

There are successful examples. See the LEO token buy-back program enabled by Bitfinex

The issue with bZx’s P125 token is that their revenue generation is too low relative to the overall amount they are trying to repay. As a result, the amount of people looking for any kind of liquidity for their P125 overwhelms the buying demand from the protocol fees, and thus pushes the price down.

I believe this ratio can be improved for PERP in a way that make sense for the affected V1 users. I’d be happy to edit this proposal as part of the combined proposal to reflect this potential.

At the end of the day, the value here is that affected V1 users get repaid via revenue instead of further PERP issuance, this minimizing dilution for the rest of the community.

Thanks for the Bitfinex example! That looks much better, although I still think we should do more analysis of their case, e.g. what their revenue stream is compare to Perp (Finex regularly has 500m days … in a bear market … for spot trading). Also it seems they have some/all of the funds already, maybe?

In response to the New York attorney general’s claim the company had lost the $850 million, Bitfinex responded that the funds had in fact been locked up on a payments platform called Crypto Capital.

In today’s announcement, the firm said any funds recovered from Crypto Capital would be used to buy and burn LEO tokens, as would an amount worth “at least 80% of recovered net funds” from its 2016 hack of cryptos worth $80 million at the time.


Given this proposal seems like it would benefit from further analysis and preparation, maybe we should let proposal 863 proceed first and come back to this proposal if there’s interest from the community?