Urgent: MIR Holders, please stop the madness of reweighting specific mAssets

Recently, there are two consecutive proposals (poll 169 & 173) targeting some specific mAssets (mDOT & mBTC). The proposal suggested to reduce the reward weighting for these two mAssets to 0.01. Passing of these two proposal is detrimental to the general healthy development of Mirror/Terra ecosystem and should be reversed or defeated.

Out of near 30 listed mAssets, only 3 (mDOT, mBTC & mETH) can be minted 24x7; the rest can only be minted during stock market hours. Reducing the weighting for these assets would take away the incentives for the Mirror-protocol users to mint these assets, dramatically reduce total time window available for the users to mint mAssets, hurting the trading volume of mirror-protocol and Terra ecosystem in general.

The wallet creating these ill-intended proposals apparently have ZERO interest in improving MIR/LUNA ecosystem as a whole. The majority of its holdings are delta-neutral position of mIAU, mSLV and several other equity mAssets. It holds 0 LUNA coins and only a tiny 0.3% worth of MIR tokens (not-yet-sold MIR reward from short farming). It holds all of its long-farm position in the Spectrum protocol, which would continuously sell the reward MIR tokens and cause falling MIR price. Obviously, the ultimate intention of this creator is to use delta-neutral strategy to milk MIR rewards, and direct the majority of MIR rewards to only those mAssets of his holldings. If we allow this madness of re-weighting to continue, the next target could be mETH, and could be any mAssets not in its holding.

Please, MIR holders please be alerted and see the detrimental effects of the poll #169 & 173 to the general health of Mirror ecosystem. Please revert poll 169 & vote No for poll #173.

4 Likes

Reviewing the polls shows many do not agree with you clearly. The assets you mention are some of the smallest pools on all of Mirror. Plus I do not know what the persons holdings matter who proposed it. The voting speaks for itself. This is defi and that one individual can not sway an entire community. Do not be upset if the majority of people seem to disagree with you.

It really matters nothing of who puts up a proposal. That is what the system if for and for people to vote. The votes are overwhelming so I definitely think (well no its fact) you are in the minority.

The Mir rewards run out in the future so if people wont mint the assets without rewards then why would they in the future?

Also other assets can be minted during regular and extended market hours, not just regular market hours I thought?

1 Like

Just like some American politicians, they are good at selling their lies to the voters with misleading words. What I want is just to alert the MIR holders so that they could see the truth. The hypocrite would on one hand criticize delta-neutral strategy while on other hand deploy the delta-neutral strategy on steroid. The holdings of the creator clearly show he/she does not care about the general health of the protocol, but just want to milk the protocol to death by tearing down specific mAssets one piece at a time. He/she clearly understand the majority of the voters would not hold the specific mAsset under vote and would appear to get the benefit of higher weighting for the remaining assets.

The idea of reducing the rewards for mbtc and mdot because they can be traded and staked easily in cryptoworld unlike real life assets. Also, The idea of mirror protocol is to bring real life assets to crypto.

I’m sure all the crypto assets on mirror protocol will end up with 0.01 weight. You will still get rewarded but not as much.

1 Like

For the health of the protocol, more and more type of mAssets should be added to increase the trading volumes, and TVL of the protocol. The reward can be made to consistently and proportionally to the trading volume. The trading volume in the past clearly indicate the certain interest in the past, re-weighting against a specific mAsset after minting is simply like a robbery.

The fraud who tried to steal 5% community pool striked again, he created poll 180 targeting mETH this time. He specifically targets, mDOT, mBTC and mETH, which are among the similar offering by Synthetix. Clearly, his purpose is to tear down Mirror Protocol one piece by a time.

Please do not vote on poll 180 so that he won’t have his MIR deposit back, hopefully it could deter his madness to a certain degree.

1 Like

You’re drawing conclusions that simply aren’t there – voting yes/no/abstain isn’t necessarily someone’s “opinion”, more likely they were swayed one way or another after a few seconds of analysis. This can be seen from when we had a similar issue with (I believe) Poll 123 – the community was heavily voting Yes until someone realized the information wasn’t correct, then no votes followed.

Further “majority of people” can’t be determined unless you review the total votes – as with many protocols, a handful of whales drive the ultimate decision, irrespective of the majority.

While I personally voted “yes” for these proposals, @vicw raises an important point – we need to carefully consider what’s actually being proposed vs the title of the proposal. Mirror’s open nature leaves it ripe for abuse.

While who puts up the proposal should 99% of the time not matter, the proposing wallet is known bad actor as they attempted to “steal” 5% of the token supply. To me that’s pretty material.

3 Likes

Facts are important so if you will reply to a dated post make sure to take dates into account. When that was written no such “burn” poll was in existence. So at the time the creator of a polls positions are meaningless. Your tossing in some after-the-fact analysis insinuating it is material because the same creator subsequently created the “burn” proposal based on your reply to my post. It was not material since your reference occurred at a future date after this topic was discussed.

Secondly I am exhausted with logic discussions and logical errors. You make the same error many do by referencing “steal”. Be objective. It could be a potential theft or could be a 70 year old woman who thought she could create a wallet address and destroy the seed. None of us know and that is plain fact. I am not vested enough to care but it is fact all we can do is speculate and pose conjecture. It is ironic you start your post out with “[y]ou’re drawing conclusions that simply aren’t there…” and then make that same error in your assessment.

I read the below reply to my post before I saw your post or the two new polls. This is almost hilarious if it was not sad how Mirror is being abused. We have alleged scammers and then now people who post polls saying do not vote for other polls. Maybe the second alert (as opposed to the community spend alert) was justified but now this is just petty. I can imagine based on the timing of your post and the timing of these polls it is your poll. Considering the address holds mDOT and you were so upset about that change it makes sense it is your wallet.

Sad state what the protocol has become.

I’m just commenting on your exact statements. The fact that you were proved wrong about who makes a proposal not mattering almost immediately reinforces this.

Lol “objective” is looking at realistic possibilities. Your 70 year old woman is a strawman.

Ironic that you says focus on facts and then invent a scenario in an attempt to prove your point.

Then I guess we can agree to disagree because you can not deny the fact all you are doing is presenting mere speculation. My 70-year grandma is one of many possibilities and was just one to show that it is impossible for your “conclusion” to be based off evidence we have access to. You latch onto the one you like the best. That is undeniable fact. It is impossible for you to come to the conclusion you came to on the facts we have. It is just impossible, plain and simple. You can speculate and come to an opinion but your statement is not fact it is opinion.

Secondly we seem to still disagree because personally I still do not care who created the proposals so saying I was proven wrong still makes no sense. The proposal system allows certain paramters. So your saying I should now care who presented the proposal scammer or not if I agree with the merits of the proposal? That is delusional thinking.

Lets see how it plays out, but I recall looking at the other wallet when this was first addressed and it has 7 figures. Doubt the guy cares if s/he lost 215UST. But I think the greed of voters, which is discussed in another thread will vote anyway because these voters seem to care more about rewards then anything. I do not even think they read the proposals many times (opinion) as if we look back over 500,000 votes went in for the “burn” proposal after the two warning proposals went up. Nuts.

I brought this up before elsewhere, but I find it hard to believe that someone who understands re-weighting and delisting assets and writes proposals for them, is ignorant of official burn addresses and made a simple “mistake.” This appears to be a bad actor through and through.

I think the community needs to reconsider the intent of his other proposals at this point.

1 Like

No one can discount your opinion. Everyone is freely entitled to one.

But also note that this very line of thinking is defined as an “ad hominem” where you attack the person’s motivations rather then the merit of the position. It is freely defined as logical thinking error. Meaning it is not logical under any line of thinking for us to ignore the merit of the position because of this persons past motivations (even if we conceded for the point of this discussion they were a scammer). It would have no bearing on the present proposal when addressing the merits.

Ah, so if you were approached by a scammer in the real world, who scammed you before, you would not factor your previous experience with the scammer into your decision making and start from Square 1 each time? Not very smart.

Starting to wonder if you and VICW are the same person by your constant references which are not even relatable. These are parameter polls. They have significant restrictions on the ability to execute code. How you find that relatable to the real world where someone has no or very limited rules is strange. Your comparisons are like VICW above who talks about “games” and compares that to defi. Basically every governance vote is a change to the protocol that was not there when it started so to him that is “changing the rules in the middle of the game”. Adding an asset therefore reducing rewards to his asset would be changing the rules. Both of the references you both use are not even remotely comparable to defi.

And lastly we have at best an “attempted” scam. When something fails to reach fruition it is an attempt. So no one has in fact scammed us (referring to your reference if I encountered someone in the real world who “scammed me before”).

And an ad hominem error is fact if you like it or not.