What's going to happen is 300% gains on BNB
I ask again, then why do you care? Getting 34/140 aren't enough for you? If you believe in it that strongly, why be in the pool at all? You'll be losing Cub while BNB is making that 300%. And if Cub doesn't go up, you'll be losing half of the 300% you could have been making on BNB alone. For that matter, if this is such a sure thing, why don't we just pare every other pool down to 2x and put them all there? I'll tell you why: because OTHER PEOPLE have their own opinions, goals, risk tolerance, defi experience, and resources. By your own admission, you thought about these things for weeks prior to "launch". Now, after one big day from BNB, you are questioning your logic.
If you want the BNB exposure, you are more than welcome to get it. In fact, that pool has 0% fees and 34X, the second biggest portion of all the farms and dens. It's a great pool to be in. Especially if you think BNB is going to have 300% gains.
Just sounds greedy to me. Pay the pool you want to go to more because you want to go to it. In the meantime, chop down the other people who prefer the BUSD pool and who invested into it with these numbers promised to them. Again, the quote you didn't quote back to me: Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Besides mooning the value of CUB and riding the coattails of the market up during a mega-bubble year? Incentivizing the community to have a lot of gas so when fees get expensive they can still afford them? Because the free-market and CUB community clearly want more inflation in the BNB pool given the trading patterns? Because it benefits everyone: that's why.
If you want to talk about backtracking on promises, why aren't you complaining that 6 dens and 4 farms just got absolutely obliterated and "greedily" added to the main pools? The "promise" you are talking about was literally stolen from all those other farms. You can't be serious.
Lot of users just got forced into taking a 4% deposit fee loss, and now they have to make a decision about whether they're going to dump their bags and enter another pool, or eat the loss and go somewhere else. Theoretically that's like x100 times worse than what we are discussing right now.
I think you are misinterpreting the issue. If I'm right and we made these changes everyone wins, yet you are painting my motives as greedy and acting like I'm trying to take resources away from someone and put them into my own pocket. I guess what's what I get for providing that exact ammunition in the original post, as I could have just as easily leaned in the opposite direction. I'm trying to bring the most value to the network as possible. You can disagree with my assessment all you want, but you can't tell me what my motives are.