Sunsetting Perp V1

What if we just shut down the cream market and the rest of the market continues to run?

I can see the temptation but after the market downturn recently and various events, including the CREAM flash moon, v1 was left in an unsustainable condition.

1 Like

I completely agree with this.

We can make a form for the compensation person to write, so that we can shave off some accounts that don’t care.

Please clarify what option 2 does.

A lot of users on discord (and some in this forum) have pointed out that penalizing the safest positions the most seems unfair.

Does option 2 sort users by margin size, or by margin ratio?

If margin size then it doesn’t seem like any of the options address the problem of haircutting the free collateral users. E.g. a user with 0.5x leverage that can’t be liquidated at 1.0x leverage, who could have simply withdrawn collateral without ever making a trade, but now takes an extra haircut.

3 Likes

I agree with that as well. I believe v2 users would also feel a lot safer if Perpetual Protocol will compensate users (via any form of delayed pay back). This will recover investor confidence in PERP. I think it’ll be a win-win for all parties.

4 Likes

yea, it will be more fair to go with the lowest margin ratio first.

1 Like

很多交易者都是在perp上进行对冲套利,为此承担超过交易本身的风险。交易者做错了什么?只是因为相信了perp的vAMM吗?是不是v2发现问题了,再做个V3,V2交易者也是这样的下场?
vAMM出生就有这个缺陷。官方早就发现了,转而重点发展V2,不积极维护V1,但多次明确表示不会放任不管。
为什么早没有停止V1?为什么突然停止V1? 只要不是开盘价任何时候停止都会有问题,因为系统与交易者做的对手盘。
我希望Perp拿出更大的勇气担当,剩余资金兑付,缺口通过发债、融资、增发Token、 Perpetual DAO 资金等任何可能负责人的态度去面对这个问题。

Many traders are hedging and arbitrage on perp, taking more risk than the transaction itself. What are traders doing wrong? Just because of believing in perp’s vAMM? Does V2 find a problem, and then become a V3, V2 trader will end like this?
vAMM was born with this defect. The official found out long ago, and turned to focus on the development of V2 instead of actively maintaining V1, but it has repeatedly stated that it will not be left alone.
Why didn’t V1 stop earlier? Why stop V1 suddenly? Stopping at any time as long as it is not the opening price will be a problem, because the system is making a counterparty with the trader.
I hope that Perp will show more courage to take responsibility, pay the remaining funds, and face this problem through the attitude of any possible responsible person, such as bond issuance, financing, additional issuance of Tokens, Perpetual DAO funds, etc.

5 Likes

As far as I know, it sorts by margin size. Sorting by margin ratio is an interesting idea though.

2 Likes

The goal of staking on Perpetual Protocol is to ensure demand for PERP, while also keeping PERP off the market. This goal exists to provide the ability for the exchange to react in emergency situations, such as extreme market events. Such an event, one example being a severe market crash, could cause the exchange insurance fund to be depleted. PERP tokens will be sold at market to cover any shortfall.
Stakers are compensated for shouldering this risk using rewards. These rewards will be updated over time in order to maintain a healthy number of staked PERP.

3 Likes

Correct, so certainly adding this as a voting option is within reason.

1 Like

No need to vote, this rule is already in the white paper

1 Like

No need for minting, just take out the token from the perp staking pool.
perp staking pools are bear risky

The litepaper and whitepaper describe the ideas behind the project, not the final implementation. For example, “the Insurance Fund, which receives 50% of the trading fees” was part of the plan, but not part of the final implementation. Our procedure for any decision about how PERP are used has always been to receive a clear mandate from the community before acting.

Following discord thread and Bugfix explanations (thanks you!), I now think that -4 is the more fair for everyone, as it is based on position size and not on collateral. I’m against differentiating users based on their positions size or leverage. Every trader using the protocol as intended should be considered the same.

I also think that Perp should try to compensate for the remaining losses (with a debt token , vested Perp, etc)

Good luck to the team and to every perpv1 traders impacted, I hope we will find a solution!

5 Likes

There were 5 wallets associated with Alameda. They’re responsible for most of OI/margin placed.
Take out whales like them from compensation and everyone else will be all right.

5 Likes

There must be an option that closes positions, repays the collateral without paying positive pnl (so that collateralized accounts with negative pnl get their collateral back) then begins to pay out profits.

Any other option is stealing from users that still have collateral after liquidating their negative position to pay positive PNL users who were already made whole with their collateral.

I propose:
1a) Positive PNL closed and only cost basis repaid & 1b) Negative PNL closed and any remaining collateral from that position repaid.

Then 2) positive PNLs paid with remaining funds.

If any method but this one is used, it is robbing negative PNLs (who have remaining collateral) to more than make whole positive PNLs. For negative PNLs, they should not be penalized for continuing to add collateral to prevent liquidation. Any other method would be stealing funds from these users

4 Likes

I mentioned that option above citing that’s how centralized exchanges managed socialized loss. Notice, however, that, on Perp the imbalance between longs and shorts makes that unrealized positive PNL sum not even $0.2M, so the remainder loss would still propagate to the losing positions, and need to be dealt with something like options 1-4

1 Like

The opponent’s position belongs to the team, so he is responsible for asking us to exit safely. Except for the Alameda whale. It’s like a scam exchange if we can’t exit normally.

4 Likes

0x0f4ee9631f4be0a63756515141281a3e2b293bbe
0x975d2dd35726e1f4e6af7e22880c49ffeda67339
0x88301e10b0ee2f7eb2c9dc9c8b98b813946d144e
0x3013ea1baafe595d6c54419a0d7e420de524c52b
0x5dac431f0479a1413c8734634c7d9de577675d40
Here is the list of Alameda’s wallets. Only ETH margin on this wallets exceeds USD 10mln. Also it’s them who’s been liquidated on CREAM. IMO it would be correct to add the option of not compensating whales like them who didn’t bring any value to the protocol, just risks. They didn’t do any active trading, didn’t generate a lot fees therefore, just reaped funding (keeping neutral positions most likely).
This option would help keeping average Joe compensated in full. Please like.

5 Likes