Provide rates rebalanced

[abduraman]

Some and different users frequently complain about the high fees and we just explain why they are so. Instead of this, why don’t we still support BUSD (BEP2) in Provide? @andrey @duc Since it has a trusted setup?

If we supported BUSD (BEP2), the users would transfer BUSD assets to Binance with very low fees and convert them to USDC or USDT without paying any trading commission (maker or taker does not matter for a long time). Since USDT has also TRON option, the exit from the Incognito would cost under 1$.

The reverse way also would benefit from BUSD (BEP2). Currently, the entry (with stablecoins) to Incognito also suffers from the high fees.

[fiend138]

I’m also seeing the old higher rates.

[gire_uno]

I see the old highest rate for all coin. Two days ago the rates were same as the table you posted

[abduraman]

Yes, they got back to the old rates. Please see what duc wrote in Telegram yesterday.

[Jamie]

If things changed back for whatever reason, it should be announced here. We are not all on Telegram.
@duc

[adrian]

I agree with Jamie, the reversal should have been communicated more widely.

I’ve pre-emptively moved some funds from DAI->USDT and lost about $100 on slippage, but would have been worth longer term because of the rate change. I’m sure I’m not the only one who did this as I saw loads of DAI->USDT transfers over the last week.

[curmudgeon]

I remember a recent post promising more transparency on communication - the current setup seems to be to have an idea of what’s going on we need to check bulletins in app, this forum, and telegram. This is not a good working model to say the least.

Could the team commit to improvement on this front? It is harder to take the project as ring run seriously when decisions seem to not be just random and communication is all over.

Pick a channel for product announcement and stick with it. It shouldn’t require third party channels when you have a forum nd in app bulletins to stay in the loop.

[abduraman]

I think the related guys are on vacation because of the Easter holiday.

@abduraman

Hey @Thomas_Edible,

Yes, the rates get back until liquidity 2.0 will be released. Probably they will update here tomorrow. Duc wrote this on Telegram yesterday:

duc in Incognito

Sorry for the confusing, we decided to revert the apy changes and will keep these till liquidity 2.0 that will allow liquidity providers to add funds directly to pdex in a decentralized manner. Provide is just a temporary product and changing…

[duc]

Hey guys, sorry for the confusing and late announcement. We reverted Provide’s APYs to previous ones. As you could see in the last few posts published officially from the core team, decentralization and privacy are things we prioritize to focus on in the next few months so changing something on a temporary product like Provide might introduce distraction to the team. That’s why we decided to roll back the changes and will be working on a longer-term plan for adding liquidity (aka allow people to add liquidity directly to pDEX and earn rewards from trading fees)

I will publish a new roadmap along with an exact timeline for each item in a couple of days. Apparently, it will include Liquidity 2.0 which’s related directly to the thread. Apologize again for the unprofessional.

[Mike_Despo]

Hi Duc. Thanks for the update.

I have some questions… Maybe someone can help me to understand.
If Provide is changing so that a fixed APY is no longer offered, but people can be offered returns on putting their $ into liquidity and therefore getting a reward from trading fees, what I see is:

Massive withdrawal of funds from the project --> Potential massive slippage of PRV, and inflation of PRV price --> Loss of profitability for node owners --> Node owners unstake and leave --> More slippage and inflation --> Rinse and repeat

As a PR point: Why would people keep their crypto in Incognito at this point in time if no fixed APY is offered, but they are only rewarded with a “mystery amount” of return based on transaction fees (which are microscopically low right now.)

Will rewards from transaction fees be at all comparable to current APY rates, and therefore can we compete with other platforms for the attention of crypto users and getting them to add their crypto into our Liquidity? If not, I just see a massive migration of users over to other platforms (like SCRT).

I have concerns (which may or may not be warranted based on my current understanding of the changes being made) that this change to Provide/Liquidity could be a massive, project killing move.

[efraimip]

I have to agree with some of Mike’s sentiments, though I also fall into the bucket of “I dont know”.

I would add that - the #1 glaring problem with incognito (how it is built, how it is presented, and how the information about it is delivered) - is that the team seems to be oblivious and blind to the fact that 99.9% of users are not interested (or not capable) of all the intricate details of how incognito works - the math and tech behind it.

According to your own numbers being reported, there is about 0.1% of users active on this forum. Most users will never come to this forum or will come once, see a bunch of your overly complicated technical posts, and never return.

Your PR and marketing is horrible - and having me say that means its 10x worse because I have been a tech CEO/CTO my entire life and am horrible at marketing/PR myself… so I do understand why (the same reason I suck at it and always have to find a partner who is good at it, or hire someone who is great at it).
However this is really the problem I am seeing and the root cause of 90% of confusion, misunderstanding, and posts like Mike’s.

You need very simple - call it idiot proof - delivery of information. Short bullet-list of points and features. Updates require the same thing. 99.9% of users will not read your entire post. They (we) want quick list of bullet-points telling us how things are, whats changing, what to expect.

I do not believe more than 1% of users at most (being generous) care about anything more than what kind of APY% we can get being here.

If you are not catering to us, incognito will fail.
All your privacy crusade issues are irrelevant to the massive majority.
They are gravy on top and a nice feature.

I am only staking about $50k worth of crypto here right now because I dont want to risk more. Also the only reason I am here is because I needed to stake my XMR and found incognito somewhere in some forum thread.
The ONLY reason I am here right now is because XMR rate%, and as an added bonus the LTC and DAI rates. If LTC and DAI were removed or rate went below what I can get elsewhere, I’d still stay for XMR - but without the APY% rewards there is no chance whatsoever I would be here.

Take provide away - or something as simple and rewarding - and you lose 90% of users (probably 99% - but I guarantee at least 90%).

[Thriftinkid]

See the ongoing discussion I brought up here. Still waiting to hear back from @aaron

[curmudgeon]

I would add that there needs to be a golden source. You’ve a very nice forum, so why are there separate announcement on telegram? Trying to find details on stake or provide on the forum, I got lost between what’s current and what’s deprecated. It’s fine to change things, but there are needs to be clarity as to what is current and a rationale.

Is dpex able to compete with sushi or uni or pancake just by privacy? Fees bring liquidity, but so does transparent governance, particular to attract more than hobby size (1750 prv at current value is more than hobby size for most). One other advantage is with high gas fees, maybe has some cost advantage for medium amounts.

I’m new to the project, like the concept, but am not sure whether to invest more into it at this stage.

[Thriftinkid]

Hey @duc,

I gotta say, this rollback is extremely frustrating. I’m very interested in hearing what this timeline is. It sounded like you had a plan weeks ago, and then this. It’s not the decision that is upsetting. But, the fact you guys spent the time to announce the new rates, and then immediately switched back. It creates doubt in any announcements you make. Doubling down with @andrey stepping down immediately after doesn’t help. There was plenty of feedback (myself included), that showed the potential problem you were about to create. It just seems like this is a reactive decision to a problem you already knew existed. I’ll have plenty of other questions after the new timeline is announced. But, in the meantime, here is my two cents about the problems and possible solution.

Problems:

1. You are no longer marketing. This means, there is currently no onboarding new capital. I understand why, but it means you need a temporary solution. That is, how to keep existing users.
2. Removing provide rates will drive away any current liquidity. Those existing users showed up specifically for that, and the money already moved off network is proof.
3. Earnings for validators is decreasing at a rapid rate, and you are no longer creating pnodes. At some point, it will not become cost-effective for vnode operators to keep them online. As that PRV price ticker makes it’s way down, you get closer to that by the day.

Solution:

1. If you are keeping provide going, and there are no more pnodes in production, there is no reason to keep the extra slots locked. There are more than enough operating nodes. Slowly releasing them is understandable, but there is zero reason to have to wait another two months. This increases vnode operator earnings back up to acceptable levels, and simultaneously allows them to onboard new vnodes. Thus, strengthening the network.
2. An announcement should be made weeks ahead of Add V2 going live. Anyone who wants to add funds to provide may do so up until it does. After that, provide is locked forever. Anyone who has funds in there will continue to earn at those rates. Any new money will only be allowed into Add V2. This is a bonus for any early adopters of the network, and it alleviates a mass exit when the rates change (like this past weekend). Anyone may remove funds at any time, but they cant add them back once they are removed.
3. Once this product is ready for market, it should only be marketed with Add V2 rates. That way, no one feels like there is a bait and switch if they move money over. They know what they signed up for. Provide was just for early adopters.
4. As new liquidity starts coming in again, then you can start adjusting provide rates SLOWLY. It should be aligned with the liquidity coming in. So, when provide rates eventually become low enough, there isnt a mass exit of liquidity from the network.
5. As provide rates drop, start offlining those nodes as liquidity is removed from there.

Just my opinion. The new timeline announcement can’t come soon enough for me. It’s going to be a real test about the stability of this ship, and the new direction.

[Tempestblack]

Thank you to @efraimip, @curmudgeon, and yes most of all to @Thriftinkid for I have seen the loyalty and support that Thriftinkid has shown this project by helping other users and assisting the project overall when tech issues or just basic usage issues have arisen…it does seem indeed that decisions are being made on the fly by the powers that be here at Incognito…well I say to them…listen to what efraimipk, curmudgen, and thriftinkid just posted in this string…they are giving you critical feedback as to the current status and general feeling within the community. They are in addition offering and suggesting very good advice as to how to correct the issues currently facing the project. It goes without say that the sudden departure of @andrey and the abrupt changes in the Provides APY rates would create normally in any other company or outfit a run on its shareholder price or in this case the price of the native coin…so in a way so far the project has been lucky that there hasn’t been a sudden run on PRV’s value and that things can still be corrected and need to be…or else much like the infamous tragedy of the Titanic…this beautiful ship is going to suffer the same ending as did that ship…at the bottom of the ocean with most of its crew and passengers lost…

[Interceptingfist]

I switched also the day it changed, its bs almost felt intentional.

[Interceptingfist]

I like this idea, hope they do it.

[Jamie]

I won’t say the current chance wasn’t sudden, neither that it was communicated well, but I will say it was expected sooner or later. The people who are here since testnet will probably agree.

All the project was about from the start was privacy, quality, stability, and in the long run increased value for PRV.

For me it feels like a welcome restart. We’ll lose a few folks, but they would have left for the next great deal anyway.

If we can trade a dip in value and users, for a more decentralized, stable system in the end, I am in. I am positive things will pick up again.

[cobo]

@andrey

Then, Provide will be phased out entirely and replaced with the decentralized Add v2.

So there will be no provide feature any more and if we provide liquidity we have to do it on both sides and that might result in impermanent loss ?

[Thriftinkid]

Correct. Eventually. They switched the rates back last month in provide and they will remain that way until they figure out this slashing change over with the nodes. They are still a ways out it looks like.