eugenesfi:

It’s overcollateralized, fast, and designed to move — not sit idle.

The necessity of just having money moving cannot be overstated–this is why banks charge service fees when you don’t use your card. This is a good consideration. My opinion on this matter has little to do with the proposal.

As always, I’m in favor of things that drive volume. It has my FOR.

As an author of the previous proposal to expand the custom taker fee on Sei I support this proposal to expand the custom taker fee to the syUSD-USDC trading pair. Onchain data shows that the aggregate spread for syUSD-USDC is about 4 bps. The current taker fee of 40 bps is 10x that and in order to improve execution for this trading pair on Carbon DeFi, it must be lowered. This approval does just that by proposing a 1 bps spread on syUSD-USDC.

Previous proposals have been brought up to the Bancor DAO that set a lower fee on stable to stable trades for certain trading pair(s) on Sei v2.

This proposal is looking to expand that list and include SyUSD with a 1 bps taker fee. syUSD is the native stablecoin for the SEI Network, built to make capital useful. It’s overcollateralized, fast, and designed to move — not sit idle.

Overview:

The default taker fee on Carbon DeFi Sei v2 deployment is 0.4% which means that anyone taking an order from the protocol has to pay this amount. Previous proposals:

have been brought up to the Bancor DAO to lower this fee on stable to stable trades for certain trading pairs in order to make Carbon DeFi more competitive with stable to stable swaps that are normally lower across other DEXs.

This list currently encompasses the following trading pairs:

USDC.n / kavaUSDT

USDC.n / USDT0

USDT0 / kavaUSDT

Native USDC / USDC.n

Native USDC / USDT0

Native USDC / KavaUSDT

This proposal is seeking to expand the custom taker fee to these other stable pairs.

syUSD / Native USDC

What is Synnax?

Synnax is a modular stablecoin protocol built to unify fragmented yield across DeFi. Unlike typical stablecoins that are either fiat-backed or narrowly tied to one yield source, Synnax is designed as a programmable layer where users can mint a stablecoin (syUSD) against crypto collateral and earn real, sustainable yield automatically.

The yield comes from market-making and arbitrage strategies on-chain. By operating natively on the Sei blockchain (optimized for high-speed orderbook trading), Synnax enables low-latency execution, fast settlement, and efficient capital deployment. Its core promise is to make stablecoins not just stable in value, but also productive assets that earn yield by default

What is Synnax syUSD?

syUSD is Synnax’s flagship asset — an overcollateralized, yield-bearing stablecoin. It maintains a soft peg to the U.S. dollar.

Users mint syUSD by depositing approved collateral (e.g. SEI, USDC, USDT, BTC, or yield-bearing tokens like sfrxUSD).

Holders can use syUSD as a regular stablecoin for payments or trading, or stake it into a yield contract (syUSDs) to capture ongoing returns. This means syUSD functions as both a stable unit of account and a passive yield instrument, effectively giving retail users access to strategies normally reserved for professional market makers

What is Native USDC?

The official form of USDC on Sei Mainnet issued by Circle, backed 100% by highly liquid cash and cash-equivalent assets and always redeemable 1:1 for US dollars.

What are the smart contract addresses for these tokens?

Native USDC:

https://seiscan.io/token/0xe15fc38f6d8c56af07bbcbe3baf5708a2bf42392

syUSD:

https://seiscan.io/token/0x059a6b0ba116c63191182a0956cf697d0d2213ec

FOR: Update the taker fee to 1 bps (0.01%) on the following trading pairs Native USDC / syUSD
AGAINST: Take no Action

ccc:

I like to investigate every project that comes to us. Unfortunately, my investigations of a project are typically limited to reading–not by the project itself (most are fully usable apps), but because I simply cannot afford the gas to spend on toying with every project to get the kind of interactive demonstration that I’d like to have.

Furthermore, because a significant portion of my weekdays are sacrificed to my day job, my reading is limited to the project docs–if I could cut back on my day job hours, even just to part-time, I’d very much like to spend more time reading news about projects, and even having conversations with community members.

It turns out that there is a solution to this problem, and its name is Odysee. I have launched a channel (RSS feed) on which I will discuss not only matters of Bancor governance, but those of other DAOs which I am a part of. All of my supporters, from the Observer tier up, have the ability to comment on my content. I have done this to prevent spam.

Obviously, most content will be free and public; I believe in transparency, and I don’t want to hide my thought process behind a pay wall–that has never been my desire. However, content concerning ideas I have–new models, upcoming proposals, projects I want to build/see built–these will require a membership. Long-form documents that I will post–let’s assume I’ll write a book on DAOs and DAO governance at some point–some of these will have a one-time price; you should never have to pay a subscription for something that you should, in principle, own, and books fall under that category. Others will be available for free, however, articles will be for the Analyst tier and up.

I will also make livestreams where I trawl my set of governance forums and respond to proposals in real time; these streams are only open to my Delegate’s Circle. The only exception to this is on the occasion that other members of Bancor governance should join me on air; it just doesn’t feel right to make that content members-only. I’ve already posted a video fleshing out my rationale for supporting this latest proposal, so go check it out!

Proposal: Expand Custom Taker Fee on Stable to Stable Trades on Celo

To be posted to Snapshot September 28th, 2025

TL;DR

Previous proposal have been brought up to the Bancor DAO that set a 0.001% (1/10th of a basis point) fee on stable to stable trades for certain trading pairs.

This proposal is looking to expand on these previous proposals by setting a lower fee on the following:

USDT-USDC
cUSD-USDT
cUSD-USDC
USDGLO-USDT
USDGLO-USDC
USDGLO-cUSD

trading pairs on the Carbon DeFi deployment on Celo.

Overview:

The default taker fee on Carbon DeFi for CELO is 0.2%. This means that anyone taking an order from the protocol has to pay this amount. Previous proposals:

have been brought up to the Bancor DAO to lower this fee to 0.001% on stable to stable trades for certain trading pairs in order to make Carbon DeFi more competitive with stable to stable swaps that are normally lower across all DEXs (e.g. On Uniswap v3/v4, stable to stable trading pairs are typically set to 1 basis point).

This proposal is seeking to expand the custom taker fee to the following six trading pairs on CELO. Specifically, these trading pairs:

USDT-USDC
cUSD-USDT
cUSD-USDC
USDGLO-USDT
USDGLO-USDC
USDGLO-cUSD

that have the following CAs:

USDT ( Tether: Gate | Address: 0x48065fbB...887483D5e | CeloScan )

USDC ( Circle: USDC Token | Address: 0xcebA9300...A8B32118C | CeloScan )

cUSD ( Celo: cUSD Token | Address: 0x765de816...8b8b1282a | CeloScan )

USDGLO ( Address: 0x4f604735...3e0225ad3 | CeloScan )

Why these tokens?

USDT: This is the official tether USDT on CELO.

USDC: This is the official Circle USDC on CELO.

cUSD: This is Mento’s USD currency on Celo. Mento is building the largest FX infrastructure, bringing world currencies onchain through its robust multi-currency stablecoin platform.

USDGLO: This is Glo Dollar, a USDC-like stablecoin. It’s got the basics you’d expect from a stablecoin: 100% backed, always 1:1 redeemable, US regulated, monthly independent reserve attestations.

FOR: Update the taker fee to .001% on these six trading pairs on CELO

AGAINST: Take no Action

I will vote FOR this proposal. Lower fees drives volume stabilizes income.

Edit: I explain this rationale further in this video.

TL;DR

Previous proposal have been brought up to the Bancor DAO that set a 0.001% (1/10th of a basis point) fee on stable to stable trades for certain trading pairs.

This proposal is looking to expand on these previous proposals by setting a lower fee on the following:

USDT-USDC
cUSD-USDT
cUSD-USDC
USDGLO-USDT
USDGLO-USDC
USDGLO-cUSD

trading pairs on the Carbon DeFi deployment on Celo.

Overview:

The default taker fee on Carbon DeFi for CELO is 0.2%. This means that anyone taking an order from the protocol has to pay this amount. Previous proposals:

have been brought up to the Bancor DAO to lower this fee to 0.001% on stable to stable trades for certain trading pairs in order to make Carbon DeFi more competitive with stable to stable swaps that are normally lower across all DEXs (e.g. On Uniswap v3/v4, stable to stable trading pairs are typically set to 1 basis point).

This proposal is seeking to expand the custom taker fee to the following six trading pairs on CELO. Specifically, these trading pairs:

USDT-USDC
cUSD-USDT
cUSD-USDC
USDGLO-USDT
USDGLO-USDC
USDGLO-cUSD

that have the following CAs:

USDT (Tether: Gate | Address: 0x48065fbB...887483D5e | CeloScan)

USDC (Circle: USDC Token | Address: 0xcebA9300...A8B32118C | CeloScan)

cUSD (Celo: cUSD Token | Address: 0x765de816...8b8b1282a | CeloScan)

USDGLO (Address: 0x4f604735...3e0225ad3 | CeloScan)

Why these tokens?

USDT: This is the official tether USDT on CELO.

USDC: This is the official Circle USDC on CELO.

cUSD: This is Mento’s USD currency on Celo. Mento is building the largest FX infrastructure, bringing world currencies onchain through its robust multi-currency stablecoin platform.

USDGLO: This is Glo Dollar, a USDC-like stablecoin. It’s got the basics you’d expect from a stablecoin: 100% backed, always 1:1 redeemable, US regulated, monthly independent reserve attestations.

FOR: Update the taker fee to .001% on these six trading pairs on CELO

AGAINST: Take no Action

My motivations for returning

I spend a lot of time designing smart contract systems. Whenever one thing needs to be converted to another, Bancor is the default option. Taking an active part in governance again, even though it seems to have slowed down for now, only makes sense to me. My attitude towards the protocol is the same as it was before: I want it to succeed, I want to see it gain widespread, global adoption–I want Bancor to be as ubiquitous as electricity, I want Bancor to be infrastructure. I think Bancor is the upgrade to Bitcoin waiting to happen, and I want to do everything I can to see these things happen.

Why you should delegate to me

You should delegate your vote to me if:

• You are an LP who is upset about how things have turned out yet;
• Have no interest in leaving, because;
• You believe that Bancor is a fundamentally good idea, and;
• You want to see BNT become the global reserve currency.

And I had been having the same issue with Brave, and I wanted to ensure people weren’t getting outdated information here.

I personally have not had any issues with staking/unstaking BNT from the governance website (Bancor Network).

Keep in mind that you should always:

1. Update browser
2. Update wallet plugins
3. Update hardware wallet
4. Make sure you have a good RPC configure
5. Clear cache/cookies to rule out any outdated files

wBTC and ETH deficit

At a minimum, the website should work; that it is broken for Chrome, which represents a large portion of browser use, is really not a good thing. With the current state of things, even though I want to, I cannot re-stake my BNT or my vBNT and have my voice heard on-chain, or really interact with the protocol in any meaningful way. Fixing this issue would be a great step forward for everyone affected.

I just wanted to put it out there that this appears to be fixed and the website working for Chrome users; I would like confirmation from other users.

Have you been able to stake your BNT through the web interface?

ccc:

When, glenn? From where, glenn? It appears we have been left out of the loop here.

No one has been left out of the loop as there have been a number of proposals that have been actioned on to improve the deficit and discussed here in governance.

These proposals include using fees from v3 to go towards deficit reduction:

fees from v2.1 to go towards deficit reduction:

Fees from Carbon DeFi to go towards deficit reduction:

and there is also fees from the Arb Fast Lane as well:

Regarding social media, this was a direct response to the OP mentioning that he has never seen Carbon DeFi mentioned anywhere, hence why I provided some of the social media channels for the product. Keep in mind that Carbon DeFi is a product that needs to be advertised to the masses of DeFi users and social media channels is the best way to do that.

At a minimum, the website should work; that it is broken for Chrome, which represents a large portion of browser use, is really not a good thing. With the current state of things, even though I want to, I cannot re-stake my BNT or my vBNT and have my voice heard on-chain, or really interact with the protocol in any meaningful way. Fixing this issue would be a great step forward for everyone affected.

I’d say it’s a fair bet that, like myself, the LPs who are still here are interested in staying here even beyond recovery, because we fundamentally believe in the platform and the principles it was founded on; we have no interest in leaving, we want to turn things around and make this project succeed, because we believe Bancor is the future. But the discussion needs to happen, loudly, publicly, at length, here–not on some social media platform, or messaging app, that is one of the cancers killing the web; not on X, not on Discord, not on Telegram (seriously, it is a dumpster fire).

ccc:

A good start would be to redirect some of the funds currently being sent to the vortex burner and use them to make LPs stuck in this situation whole again.

Those are one and the same thing.

This is decentralized finance, not a casino. We are here to make money through sound policy and governance, not through a roll of the dice.

This is a profoundly terrible idea and an absolute insult to the very principles upon which this platform was founded. While presented as a solution, this idea functions as a transparent attempt to shift the burden of an ongoing protocol failure onto the very community that has already suffered losses, distracting us from the real issues.

We call upon this community to create a clear, principled, and accountable path forward, not a lottery.

As a former governance delegate and a long-term liquidity provider, still stuck in the v2.1 protocol, it is insulting to be told to check Twitter, LinkedIn, and Telegram for information on a core protocol issue. This governance forum was designed for this exact purpose—to facilitate transparent and direct policy discussions. Redirecting members to social media is a profound show of disrespect to this community and the platform’s foundational principles. I do not care how many users are on LinkedIn, or X, or whatever transient social media platform exists—they need to come here. Those platforms should be for summaries and conclusive announcements, at best.

The fact that you would suggest we look for answers on external social media channels, rather than engaging in a serious, substantive discussion here where it belongs, is entirely unacceptable. This behavior and this direction is a disgrace to the project and a direct contradiction of what a decentralized autonomous organization should be, and everyone involved ought to be ashamed.

We need a clear and accountable path forward, not links to vapid tweets. We demand that the Bancor team and its representatives engage with us directly, here on this forum, to resolve the outstanding issues that have been ignored for far too long.

Moreover, we do not need advice; we are quite capable of making our own decisions. The very promises upon which we made those decisions were broken when the vortex burner—the mechanism for impermanent loss protection—was shut off. Whether or not this was done by a vote does not change the devastating consequences for LPs; it merely highlights a profound failure of the governance process itself to protect the very community it was intended to serve.

I have been a liquidity provider on Bancor since 2021, and like many others, I have just returned to find the state of the platform profoundly disappointing. My frustration is not simply that of an LP, but also of a former governance delegate who still holds governance tokens. This thread is a testament to the immense frustration felt by the community, and it is a discussion that should never have had to happen in the first place.

The core promise of the Bancor platform was a form of protection against impermanent loss, a promise that was central to our decision to participate. The fact that this protection was disabled, coupled with the broken website and general lack of progress, is a profound breach of trust. This lack of progress is compounded by a profound communication deficit. While information may be shared on other platforms, the fact that the team is effectively absent from these governance forums—which were created for the express purpose of facilitating transparent discussion—is a clear sign that this community’s concerns are not being prioritized. Furthermore, the fact that the team has seemingly wandered off and started working on Carbon DeFi—completely ignoring this outstanding issue—is entirely unacceptable. This now-long-standing problem should have been resolved before any new projects were launched.

We were promised a solution, yet years later, the situation has only worsened. My portfolio, like countless others, has been in limbo, and the deficit has grown. The lack of clear communication and accountability from the Bancor team is entirely unacceptable.

We need more than promises, and we need to hear from more of the team than just one spokesperson. We need a concrete, actionable recovery plan with a clear timeline; a roadmap back to proper handling of this project. A good start would be to redirect some of the funds currently being sent to the vortex burner and use them to make LPs stuck in this situation whole again. We need transparency regarding what happened, why it happened, and how the team plans to rectify it. Anything less is a disservice to the community that trusted and supported this project.

The time for waiting has passed. We deserve an end to this uncertainty and a clear path forward.

If you think the code is law, you should reinitiate the BNT mint. can’t keep ppl hostage without any meaningful progress for years just to protect your token.

TL;DR:

A previous proposal was brought up to the Bancor DAO that set a 0.001% (1/10th of a basis point) fee on stable to stable trades for certain trading pair(s) on Sei v2.

This proposal is looking to expand that list with the newly launched Native USDC and possible combinations of Native USDC with other popular stablecoins (USDC.n, kavaUSDT, and USDT0).

Overview:

The default taker fee on Carbon DeFi Sei v2 deployment is 0.4% which means that anyone taking an order from the protocol has to pay this amount. A previous proposal:

was brought up to the Bancor DAO to lower this fee to 0.001% on stable to stable trades for certain trading pairs in order to make Carbon DeFi more competitive with stable to stable swaps that are normally lower across all DEXs.

This list currently encompasses the following trading pairs:

USDC.n / kavaUSDT

USDC.n / USDT0

USDT0 / kavaUSDT

This proposal is seeking to expand the custom taker fee to these other stable pairs.

Native USDC / USDC.n

Native USDC / USDT0

Native USDC / KavaUSDT

What is Kava USDT?

On Sei Mainnet, a bridged form of USDT exists, which has been bridged from Kava via IBC.

What is USDT0?

USDT0 is the official standard for USDT on Sei Mainnet. It’s backed 1:1 by locked assets on Ethereum and ensures seamless interoperability across blockchain networks via the LayerZero protocol.

What is Native USDC?

The official form of USDC on Sei Mainnet issued by Circle, backed 100% by highly liquid cash and cash-equivalent assets and always redeemable 1:1 for US dollars.

What is USDC.n?

In the case of Sei Mainnet, there exists a bridged form of USDC known as USDC via Noble (USDC.n), which is USDC that has been bridged from Noble.

What are the smart contract addresses for these tokens?

Native USDC:

USDC.n:

KAVA-USDT:

USDT0:

FOR: Update the taker fee to .001% on the following trading pairs Native USDC / USDC.n, Native USDC / USDT0, and Native USDC / KavaUSDT

AGAINST: Take no Action

Jen, Mark, care to comment?

I’d like to begin seeing a monthly report or something clarifying the progress that is being made.

Also, it’d be great to understand the capacity of the current team and then perhaps create a private channel where only verified users with funds stuck can privately discuss ideas of how we might get the pools out of deficit.

If we leave this much longer I suspect this governance discussion room will become a ghost town and nobody will be left with any hope.

Surely if we band together, we can come up with some strategies to begin moving the needle.

Would love to hear feedback from all team members rather than just one spokesperson please.

It’s been three years since the death spiral. I’ve been patiently waiting out any news of recovery for the major pools still in deficit and personally have large bags stuck in them. I’m having trouble figuring out if any active initiative is being made to make holders whole.
I’ve been lurking in Discord, lurking on this governance forum, monitoring tweets from the official Bancor account. Nothing substantial, just a steady stream of integration announcements and nothing about the deficit.

I know there’s Carbon and fees, maybe some other new things recently - but I check on the Dune deficit dashboard every month and the situation is never better. So clearly nothing is being done about the deficit or nothing is helping much. I’m sure there are others who have just been waiting all this time as well. For me, I’m about ready to throw in the towel. I’m tired.

But before I do, I want to make my voice heard. Bancor needs to take responsibility for the false IL protection promises or come clean about how reparations are never happening. It’s impossible to find information about what the team is working on and if this is even still on their radar. Hell, I don’t even know who the Bancor team is now, if they still exist. Is anyone owning the recover plan for the deficits?

The community needs clarity and closure.

TLDR

• TAC is a purpose-built blockchain for EVM dApps to access TON and Telegram Ecosystem’s 1B+ users base.
• As with every deployment of CarbonDeFi, the Arb Fast Lane framework will be deployed as well.
• Fees will be used in the same way they are in the Ethereum, SEI, CELO and COTI deployments.

Summary

• For a quick overview or TAC click here
• We have already seen CarbonDeFi’s performance on inexpensive fast chains is impressive.
• TAC is very interested in this CarbonDeFi deployment and will work to ensure there is deep liquidity on CarbonDeFi.
• As with every deployment of CarbonDeFi, the Arb Fast Lane framework will be deployed as well.
• Fees generated by the deployment will be used exactly the same as fees generated by the Ethereum, SEI, CELO and COTI deployments.
• This proposal suggests setting the taker fee at 20 basis points
  • This is a parameter that can be adjusted by the DAO.
• Upon deployment, this proposal does not suggest any custom fee for stable to stable trades. While the author of this proposal would like to have something similar to what was done on mainnet (link), it might make more sense to see which stables people are interested in using and then creating the special fee tier.

FOR

Deploy on TAC with a taker fee of 20 BP

AGAINST

Take no action

TL;DR

• The proposal follows the previously passed: Proposal: Bridge Back to the CarbonDeFi
• The purpose of this proposal is to add flexibility to the bridge used.
• This is a result of various bridges with their own nuances which make using a public function complicated and in some cases risky.
• The specific reason I am writing this now, is that there is 22.5 WETH on CELO where the easiest way to bring it back to mainnet is not via their native bridge.
• CELO vault: Address: 0xa15E3295...6Cd01E562 | CeloScan

New Bridge Function: Copied From the Previous Proposal:

• A new contract associated to each Carbon Vortex will have a new public function called “bridge()”
  • This does not include Ethereum
• The details of this function on each chain will be different to fit the relevant bridge available for this chain
• On execution:
  • Indicate amount or send the full currently available budget of the token
  • Submit a transaction to the bridge
  • Destination on Ethereum will always be the carbonVault address

Note 1: This proposal suggests no caller incentive for this Function as it is likely to be triggered by someone in the community who does not require a financial incentive - this also simplifies the contract.

Note 2: For safety, we should enforce minReturn to prevent bridge actions that “leak” funds in the process as a result of low bridge liquidity.

Update

• This proposal provides additional flexibility beyond what was covered here: Proposal: Bridge Back to the CarbonDeFi
• This proposal, rather than selecting a specific bridge, gives the right to use any of the following bridges on any chain where the protocol has value to be brought back to mainnet:
  • Native bridge
  • Stargate V1/V2
  • Across
  • Wormhole
  • Layer Zero
  • Axelar
  • Hyperlane
  • Chainlink CCIP

FOR

• Allow increased flexibility as detailed above

Against

• Make no changes

https://dune.com/bancor/bancor3-surplus-deficit

you will also be able to filter for any other token that you are interested in viewing as well. As of today, there are only 10 pools that are still in deficit in Bancor v3. You can view those via the Bancor DAPP (Bancor Network).

No one can advice you on whether you should withdraw liquidity with a deficit or stay in the protocol until recovery happens.

Carbon DeFi is now running on Ethereum, Celo, Sei v2, and Coti. The protocol continues to expand via licensed deployments as well to other blockchains. In addition, Bancor has also seen traction via the arb fast lane which is an arbitrage framework available across multiple blockchains.

For social media, you can keep up with everything Bancor and Carbon DeFi via the following methods:

https://twitter.com/carbondefixyz
https://twitter.com/Bancor

i have been keeping this position open so i can offset future capital gains, but doesn’t it make more sense to pull the band-aid off now?

am i wrong to assume that the deficit is not going to be resolved and that everything has been tarnished? i have never seen carbon mentioned on any defi app or on social media anywhere. i wish no ill will, but i’ll never use a bancor product. i have $bnt in my wallet that do literally nothing

edit: i could have closed this 2+ years ago and been up probably 10% on treasury notes. how much has the gap widened in that time versus ether?

can i graph this overtime? how foolish am i to sit here and check the governance forum in a few months and see no progress.