BAL Whitelist - Round 7

On behalf of the Balancer community, I’d like to propose the following modifications to the token whitelist used for BAL governance distribution. As a reminder, these whitelist proposals are largely noncontentious, so they are not subject to community vote. Instead, the community has 24 hours to review the proposal and voice concern; otherwise, it automatically passes. For reference, please see the previous proposals which detail the motivation for creation of the whitelist and define the list of tokens used to date:

https://forum.balancer.finance/t/proposing-the-token-whitelist-for-bal-distribution
https://forum.balancer.finance/t/bal-whitelist-round-2
https://forum.balancer.finance/t/bal-whitelist-round-3
https://forum.balancer.finance/t/bal-whitelist-round-4
https://forum.balancer.finance/t/bal-whitelist-round-5
https://forum.balancer.finance/t/bal-whitelist-round-6

First, I propose to remove REPv1 from the existing whitelist. To assist in the token migration from REPv1 to REPv2, we believe it’s best to de-incentivize REPv1 liquidity - these LPs should migrate to the new token (which will now be whitelisted) and supply liquidity there instead.

    REMOVE	REP		0x1985365e9f78359a9B6AD760e32412f4a445E862

I would also like to propose adding the following new tokens to the whitelist:

    ADD		DEFI++	0x880873a96ce38c7fd39dc714592902b069bde048
    ADD		DEFI+L	0x24d1917c1ae6c085e6b68b6c1a41b8f9de5bd441
    ADD		DEFI+S	0xad6a626ae2b43dcb1b39430ce496d2fa0365ba9c
    ADD		EVAN	0x89E3aC6Dd69C15e9223BE7649025d6F68Dab1d6a
    ADD		GRT		0xb83Cd8d39462B761bb0092437d38b37812dd80A2
    ADD		LOCK	0x95172ccBe8344fecD73D0a30F54123652981BD6F
    ADD		REPv2	0x221657776846890989a759BA2973e427DfF5C9bB
    ADD		SRM		0x476c5E26a75bd202a9683ffD34359C0CC15be0fF
    ADD		VLT		0x6b785a0322126826d8226d77e173d75DAfb84d11

The proposed changes would go into effect at 00:00 UTC on Monday, August 10.

I support whitelisting:
REPv2 0x221657776846890989a759BA2973e427DfF5C9bB
SRM 0x476c5E26a75bd202a9683ffD34359C0CC15be0fF

I oppose whitelisting and recommend a vote on:

DEFI++ 0x880873a96ce38c7fd39dc714592902b069bde048 double dipping BAL
DEFI+L 0x24d1917c1ae6c085e6b68b6c1a41b8f9de5bd441 double dipping BAL
DEFI+S 0xad6a626ae2b43dcb1b39430ce496d2fa0365ba9c double dipping BAL

LOCK 0x95172ccBe8344fecD73D0a30F54123652981BD6F I don’t think that subsidising pooling of this token is best for Balancer. Staking rewards have minor features of a ponzi scheme. I will support adding this project when it delivers a good product and becomes successful.

EVAN 0x89E3aC6Dd69C15e9223BE7649025d6F68Dab1d6a I don’t support subsidizing personal coins but I appreciate this is not a scam.

VLT 0x6b785a0322126826d8226d77e173d75DAfb84d11 I will support this coin when it becomes somewhat successful. At the moment I don’t see much value in subsidising pooling of this TRON ecosystem coin.

GRT 0xb83Cd8d39462B761bb0092437d38b37812dd80A2 “Creating value from nothing in 90 days!” I’ll support whitelisting this token when the team delivers on some promises.

I support adding DEFI+ coins to the whitelist once earning BAL on the same assets twice is resolved, likely next week. I support adding these coins to the whitelist now if doubledipping on BAL is removed this week. Examples of coins doubledipping BAL: BTC++, USD++, DZAR.

How are these tokens being assessed for community whitelisting at the moment?

I don’t know how it works but there are too many sketchy coins and too many ponzi schemes whitelisted on Balancer so I’m raising concerns.

While I don’t think that Serum will get much traction other than having FTX on Serum, it will certainly generate a lot of trading volume and having this coin here will be positive for Balancer.

Adding REPv2 is an obvious yes.

I guess we need to start thinking about separating UI whitelist from BAL whitelist.
I wouldn’t have anything against whitelisting almost all of them for the UI. But I don’t get why Balancer should subsidize shady/scammy looking projects with BAL rewards - without them bringing any value to balancer.

Had quick look at the projects unknown to me:

  • VLT - Nope, looks shady, not a lot of info. https://bankroll.network/vlt.html: Farming BAL should not be a headline for a token… they have a “VLT Price Estimator - this will change your life”…
  • SRM - This is project serum, right? I would wait with whitelisting until the tokens have been distributed. Currently there is only 1 address holding the token (FTX exchange… remember? :slight_smile:
  • LOCK - Nope, looks like a ponzi to me. Their litepaper mentions: “designed to reward holders and prevent selling.” Has a 1.5% DAILY dividend rate…
  • GRT - Also looks shady “creating value from nothing - in 90 days”… but low total supply so I guess it’s fine…
  • EVAN - Obviously I know Evan and don’t have anything against his token in particular. But I’m against whitelisting personal tokens in general… everybody can create a personal token, buy a twitter account with some followers and request a whitelist… (and only 88 holders of EVAN)

Re: DEFI++, DEFI+L, DEFI+S: They have public swap disabled anyways, so they won’t receive BAL. But I’m definitely pro adding them to the UI, it’s a very cool product!

Maybe I’m being a bit strict with the whitelisting, but every shitcoin that gets approved takes some amount of BAL away from the legit tokens. The ones that actually bring attention and users to Balancer.

1 Like

Oh, I didn’t know that DEFI+ projects have public swap disabled. In that case I support whitelisting them!

1 Like

Agree. We should decide on a framework for adding new tokens.

I believe that the potential harm of whitelisting a non-reputable/scam token greatly overweighs the need for rapid additions of the long tail. The process of whitelisting could ideally even incentivise participation in the $BAL community first.

But before all that, need to decide on the priorities and goals / outcomes of a whitelisting program.

2 Likes

Given community feedback, $EVAN, $GRT, $LOCK, and $VLT were omitted from round 7. These will be revisited and most likely added in round 9 under the new terms of the recent process proposal, which includes a $1M cap on adjusted liquidity and precludes subjective community feedback.