Actually a rising BNB price would give you more CUB, because half of the LP is BNB. When the price of BNB moves up, users in the CUB/BNB farm are selling a little BNB for more CUB to keep the ratio of the pool at 50:50. This happens automatically (AMM: automated market maker)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The opposite is also true though. If Cub goes to $10 and BNB goes to $600, you lose Cub because it tripled and BNB only doubled. I don't have a big stake in either pool. Most of mine is in the den. I just followed your logic for the last month about the stablecoins and I agreed with you. I just think this is way too rash of a decision to make after one day. Shifting these things around on a constant basis is going to lead to less trust. People will feel like they're being taken advantage of while more sophisticated people will be raking.
You have your opinion and you laid out your reasoning. I have mine and gave you my reasons as well. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't agree with you.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
This is the exact case I'm talking about.
You lose even more CUB in the BUSD pool.
That is not an opposite scenario it's the same scenario.
Not only do you lose more CUB: the BUSD still left in your possession is still $1,
while all the BNB you'd be left with has gone x2. This is the issue I'm trying to discuss. It has nothing to do with impermanent loss but rather how many gains we missed out on from BNB spiking.
That's one of the reasons the BUSD pool needs the higher x-factor. There needs to be liquidity there too and obviously the incentive needs to be higher to compensate for the fact it could be losing Cub along the way if the price increases. This just provides more justification to leave it where it is....
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
wLEO is 100% pegged to Ethereum and that's been fucking amazing and will continue to be fucking amazing until the end of the year. It would be stupid not to ride the coattails of the top 3 coins by market cap during a mega-bubble year.