SIMP-3: Change Short-Farm Maximum Reward Allocation from 40% to 100%

The UI has a bug and calculates the quorum as if the gov. stake was ~33m when it is in fact ~47m. So the UI displays the poll as if it has met quorum when in fact it did not.

Damn this was rejected….

This is cheating, or accidents. I am disappointed!

@josephsavage This was a great proposal and should have passed.

Perhaps people are not voting for it because they may misunderstand due to the title and may think their long rewards will all become 0. The current title which has the words “short-farm” and 100% may cause people to think the proposal is to send all the rewards to the short side temporarily.

Maybe we should try to state this update in the following way: “Balanced Rewards for Long-Farm and Short-Farm.” Currently the long side is getting more of the rewards than the short side and this is what is causing the imbalance.

Another thing is that I saw some pushback due to this being discussed as a “temporary” solution. IMO this should not have been called a temporary solution but rather simply a solution. It is more natural to have balanced rewards instead of having more rewards for long vs. short which is causing the problem.

I hope we can try this again as soon as possible.

Btw, if we look at IAU right now, it has long = 8% and short = 12% rewards with a 2.5% premium.

Meanwhile, TSLA has long = 16% and short = 7% rewards with a 30% premium.

It seems that IAU already has a good reward structure and it appears to be working well.

For the implementation, can we simply propose to make the reward structures of the other names the same as the IAU structure? It’s balanced, there is already evidence that it is working quite well, and there would be no new ideas needed, simply just copying the IAU structure which is already in production. Also, for the past few months, IAU has often been much closer to 0% than most of the others.

Blockquote

1 Like

Mirror Vote: 6.80 M MIR results: execution

Mirror Vote: 7.51M MIR results: rejected

It’s not fair.

1 Like

It’s really annoying when whale wallets show up for some votes and not others… like this one:

Any chance to get a new proposal with codes up again?

2 Likes

I myself am willing to concede defeat here and not champion this proposal further. If others choose to get the work done anyway and submit the release to governance for deployment, then more power to them. However, I am skeptical about whether the higher quorum for a deployment poll can actually be met if we couldn’t even reach the lower target for a text poll.

1 Like

Am I missing something, does it not seem that increasing selling pressure on high premium assets is in the best interest of this whale?

Does someone speak whalish here?

The problem is we don’t know who they are so it’s hard to open a communication channel.

We should try it again. Maybe with lower max reward? Or whales just didn’t see it.

I also saw it passed the quorum yesterday with 19+% of YES votes. Amount of Abstain and No has not changed a lot. But today there is only 16% YES votes… how is it possible?

I believe we should allow somehow the direct Pull request approve proposals and start by fixing these strange UI bugs. Is it feasible ?

2 Likes

This was discussed when SIMP-1 failed. At the moment no one has stepped forward with any solutions for how to fix the front end.

This is absolutely gut wrenching to see. These obscenely high premiums are plaguing Mirror. I see in the end only around 9400 votes were missing. If it wasnt for this UI bug showing poll comfortably going through, I would be willing to buy yesterday evening myself these 10k MIRs. Such a shame.
Kudos to josephsavage for trying, good proposal imo, this shouldnt have happened (to miss the poll by 0.02%).

3 Likes

If we know that this is a UI issue, doesn’t this mean we can still integarte the related pull request ?
I mean TEXT poll do not change anything in the protocol and settings… I believe they are not that important

3 Likes

It is not about the community not wishing this change to be implemented (90+% people voted YES).
The negative result is certainly due to a low participation rate, which is caused by a single reason:

  • people didn’t see the poll

Why they didn’t see it?

  • No notification (on site, twitter, pinned message in telegram, etc)
  • Vacations
  • People aped in stacking and don’t care about the governance
  • Poll duration is too short

Let’s discuss what can we improve to avoid those?
I believe we still could add on-site notifications and make polls duration configurable… what do you think?

There are 50M tokens in the community pool, which can be spent on this kind of development, development may be outsourced if we have no web-expert in the community… It is not that expensive… It much cheaper than loosing 1000 MIR on polls rejected due to UI bugs… I even saw several messages from people ready to lead the development and review the pull requests

3 Likes

Damn this sucks. I personally dont thing lowering the MCR on large caps will solve high positive premium. More likely it will serve to maybe bring up the negatives which are 2 (excluding mVixy). I dont think people will magically start minting if they can compare charts of something like mKO and mAmzn. Realistically I think only loopers will drive this premium down. And if you had half a brain to look at a historical chart why would you short loop stocks that have risen 100%+ in the past years vs a stable low growth divy play like mKO. See the difference in neg premium between spy and mKO? At best youll spread a little of this out which I guess doesnt hurt.

Why cant MSC try to push this through again? It seems you have a majority of the actives users support. Idont see a problem with trying a more fleshed out version if you are using community fuinds. (I dont know if you used the funds or your own)

1 Like

I believe we can all agree on a couple of points here:
-Mirrored assets should ideally track the price of the underlying assets. We need proper incentive mechanisms for this to function correctly.
-MIR rewards are distributed between the longs (LP-providers) and the shorts (sLP/minters). At low premiums, longs gets close to 100% of the distribution. At high premiums shorts only get up to 40% of the distribution. This is a clever balancing-mechanism, but the 40% cap for shorts is clearly too low to incentivize minters to bring down the premium. I.e, it is currently too lucrative to be long.

The proposal in this thread (up to ~100% both ways) would undoubtedly help balance the system, both short and long term. I had high hopes for this change, and I am very saddened to see the poll fail to meet quorum. But it is clearly not a case of the community disagreeing with the proposal, it is a matter of getting enough votes. I strongly hope the community will no give up on this change.

4 Likes

The reality is even worse, some people didnt participate solely due to UI bug and would make extra effort, if they knew, it is this close.

By the way, I took the liberty to create a pull request for this proposal yesterday. If anyone wants to put up a new poll, maybe it could be included so that people can see the actual code change they are voting for.

3 Likes