BMIP 009: Boardroom Expansions for Sustainable BOMB

BMIP 009: Boardroom Expansions for Sustainable BOMB

BMIP 009: Boardroom Expansions for Sustainable BOMB

This proposal aims to provide stability and consistency to the whole BOMB Money ecosystem.

The logic and thought process that went into this proposal is explained in detail on the May 9th BOMB Shell Update, specifically in the section: The Proposed Sustainability Solution.

Please read this section here: BOMBSHELL MAY 9: Sustainable BOMB, Proposals & xBOMB | by PegHub / BOMB Ecosystem | Medium

This proposal is a combination of two items:

  • Overall sustainability of BOMB long-term by reviewing APRs on a regular basis, and proposing changes when APR has moved outside of our desired range (500% to 1000%)
  • A change now to 0.5% maximum expansions, which would be roughly 1000% APR at $200 BSHARE and with full prints (only 1.005 TWAP required for full).

Based on everything discussed above in the BOMB Sustainability section, BOMB Money Improvement Proposal 009 (BMIP 009) aims to address sustainability head on.

We feel that regularly reviewing boardroom rewards and making necessary adjustments when needed for the health of the protocol, and for our community, will be a win-win in the long run.

This will be the first governance vote where we host open discussion on our new BOMB TALK forum. Please find the discussion here: BMIP 009: Boardroom Expansions for Sustainable BOMB

I would strongly recommend against voting until you have read the relevant sections of the May 9 BOMB Shell, as well as checked community comments and suggestions at https://forum.peghub.com

The image below shows two columns of variables used for calculations on the left, and the results in the two columns on the right. The only difference between the input variables is the proposed changes has the new 0.5% expansion and $200 BSHARE for the calculations. The boardroom APR shown of 1000% would be double that with $100 BSHARE.

6 Likes

I’ll always provide honest feedback. I like the idea but the timing feels off (couldn’t we have tried the reduced twap for a short period?) and this adds yet another layer of complexity to an already complex protocol (which I see as the no.1 turn off for potential investors). I think this does, at least in the short term, increase uncertainty and reduce buy pressure for bshare as we’re reducing rewards. It won’t reduce sell pressure for bomb until we’re printing again. Someone pointed out before that the discord can be an echo chamber and I agree, hopefully this is some constructive feedback?

Also - I believe we do not get the necessary time to debate the proposed changes before voting goes live, and the voting periods are extremely short. I’m sure a lot of investors aren’t even aware of the proposal/vote before it is finished.

5 Likes

I don’t believe this is the correct move at this time.

I believe in the short term, this move would cause bshare to not have much price appreciation because the beneficial factor of having it staked in boardroom would be almost null compared to having it in a farm, therefore inturn causing less buy pressure on bshare → causing less apr in farms-> causing less buy pressure on bomb-> causing peg to not be maintained even more.

I understand that there is an issue of bomb being dumped after epoch prints by certain individuals, but i do not believe this to be the answer to the situation at all.

I think focus should be on pushing the U.I. update out, which, [Not Fudding], but should probably have been completed by now, as well as focusing on the leverageable LP, which will inturn increase the bomb buys by 6x from autocompounding the leveraged lp.

It seems as if the solutions that are being given are more towards the current holders and participants of the ecosystem, when infact I believe the solutions to both the bomb being dumped after prints, and long term health is knocking out the UI/Leveragable LP autocompounding vaults → and then also doing HEAVY MARKETING ALONG WITH THEM.

I Understand how the proposed solution could ve beneficial, as we can take EMPs example of a much less apr for boardroom epoch prints, but the difference between bomb and EMP is that 1- EMP has much more marketing going on than we do atm, causing more buy pressures on both of their ecosystem tokens, equaling out to their farm and boardroom paying out nicely even with the low apr, 2- the appeal of bombs ecosysem to new users IS THE FACT OF THE HIGH APR IN BOARDROOM!, i think this would be a major mistake and this would not be a solution to the issue at hand of maintaining peg, i believe pushing out the Ui/Leveragable LP and then doubling up with marketing pushes on these two things are both the solution to this issue and longterm health of the project.

Edit - I know it takes people in the ecosystem to do the correct things to maintain peg and protocol health, however increasing liquidity inturn helps combat the bomb dumpage issue coupling this with more holders that play the protocol correctly, the issue would be solved this way in a much better fashion, without taking away and harming bshares utility, or any of the domino effectual things from doing that.

TL;DR of my opinion > More Liquidity → less Impact on Peg from bomb sells & Lev LP-> more bomb buy pressure to peg more
&
Crearing more Holders that use ecosystem correctly combats peg issue better.
&
Doing whats proposed could knock buy pressure off the entire ecosystem.

5 Likes

I’m glad to read both of the previous replies. I agree with @Ripcord39 and @khaotikzlol, and I also agree that discussions can sometimes feel quite one-sided which makes it difficult to share views which differ from those held by the perceived majority.

I feel that the outcome of changes should be thoroughly analysed in order to determine whether they were beneficial or not. If more significant changes happen before the outcome of previous changes are assessed, it makes it impossible to determine which changes have caused any positive or negative effects that follow. I don’t feel like we’ve yet been able to see the impact of the previous changes.

For long-term sustainability of the protocol, the ‘correct’ way for people to use the protocol not only has to be in the best interests of the protocol as a whole, but it must also look like the best decision to every individual. Strangers simply cannot be expected to act in a way that isn’t in their own best interest; it will never happen. So, holding/reinvesting bomb rather than selling it has to be seen as the most attractive option in order to prevent people selling it.

The primary issue therefore imo is lack of utility for bomb. Right now, BUSM is illiquid and below peg, so that is not an option. To use the farms requires selling either 20% or 50% of BOMB - so even the ‘correct’ way to use the protocol results in people selling a good size of the prints. With little marketing so far, we don’t yet have the the liquidity to absorb this. Once the new UI and other changes are made, BOMB will have far more utility. Once it can be used as collateral to borrow other assets that aren’t as illiquid as BUSM, there’s no way people will be selling it like they are right now. More utility results in more people wanting to buy it and fewer people selling it, so we’ll be higher above peg, print more often, and BSHARES will rise which will increase APR in farms and result in the entire protocol being more attractive to investors. It will also make people far less likely to want to sell BOMB for BSHARES.

Although this change will likely be needed in the future, I don’t feel that now is the right time.

P.s. I really like having a forum dedicated to this! And sorry for the essay.

5 Likes

By the looks of the voting this is about to – or already has – passed. Nevertheless, I feel khaotikzlol makes fair points; Particularly about the potential downside of adding another layer of complexity (personally, I like complexity).

What will happen if Bshares go to $20. What if they go to $2000 or $20,000?

The “current Bshare price” relative to APR is really only relevant to people who bought at “current Bshare price”. People who bought Bshares at 10x (full disclosure: I recall buying 1 at $700) the current price and diamond handed them all the way down probably don’t feel great about the “still insane APR”.

In summary, given the situation as it stands with the protocol pretty damn healthy and game changing new features to come soon… the proposed change is quite substantial and change feels like a slight overreaction.

3 Likes

Dont like it at all. It will reduce buy pressure of bshare.

Personally I am very much in favor of lowering the boardroom APR. The higher the APR, the more it will cause sell pressure for the protocol (Bshare maxi’s → selling BOMB rewards for Bshare for example). In my eyes, for the long-term, the proposal makes total sense.

That put aside, this could ofcourse also be the other way around, to the point where the APR (short-term) is not interesting anymore. I can not tell at what point this is, but based on the above replies it’s not far away.

I’m not sure if I see BOMB at a point where a big change can be implemented already as I feel we currently need the Bshare buys in order to stay interesting in terms of APR/APY.

Although I am in favor of the proposal, I’m not quite sure it’s the right timing. Feel like this could make it, but also break it (short-term).

My question would be: Is this change going to make sure we are going to keep printing? And what plans would there be on the side lines to make sure we do?

2 Likes

I can see the potential and intended benefits but I also do not like the timing of this proposed change. We haven’t even had a print with with the most recent change to TWAP payouts and now we’re introducing another reduction to printed bomb for the boardroom. The lack of boardroom prints as of late have not been due to large payouts (we haven’t had any) but simply there being more sell pressure than buy pressure. Let’s see how payouts at lower TWAP plays out before assessing if more changes are needed to encourage the overall growth of the protocol.

2 Likes

At current BSHARE prices, our max print would equate to a 14% daily APR. There is nothing in the world we can do to stay above peg with that much BOMB flooding the markets.

Once we achieve some of the items you mentioned in your post, like higher liquidity, etc, then we can definitely ramp expansions back up.

I think the main thing to take away here, is this is a temporary change, so we can get back to having a high value BSHARE that is printing consistently. This includes consistent printing at higher expansion %s in the future, but we need to walk before we can run or it will never take off.

We are fighting a peg war after every big print without this change. I’d rather not have to deal with that every print. I am sure most would agree

1 Like

Can you elaborate? We have averaged a very low amount of epochs printing, and you can see what that has done to the BSHARE price. So you think keeping everything the same, somehow, BSHARE price will appreciate in value?

These changes had one main purpose - increase the value of BSHARE. I will be shocked if consistent printing at 1000% APR does not achieve our goal of BSHARE price appreciation.

We tweak expansion percent up as soon as we can.

1 Like

This change won’t ensure we are printing, it will just allow us to offer what is still a very high APR, and a much greater chance of staying above peg when we go above.

We will only propose expansion changes when we are clearly falling outside of the intended APR range, or when other factors dictate we can raise the expansion without putting stability at risk.

1 Like

The price people entered BSHARE really has nothing to do with this vote.

This proposal is aimed at getting BSHARE price to appreciate in value. People who entered at $35, or $12,000, should all want the same thing: BSHARE price go up

I strongly feel having a reliably printing BSHARE will accomplish this

1 Like

Glad you like the forum idea, its working out just as intended! These types of intelligent conversations to discuss critical protocol changes are exactly what we wanted.

I am going to address this change on our live stream tomorrow. I think when it is explained in the right light, and not trying to jam a ton of information into a BOMB Shell update, it will really help everyone understand why we thought this was necessary, and the timing.

Thanks for your feedback!

2 Likes