Blur Fee Switch Discussion

I posted my thoughts on this here:

But will drop it here as well, as the buyback & burn model isn’t ideal, to say the least.

I also say this as someone who doesn’t hold any $BLUR at all.

  1. The vast majority, if not all [$BLUR] farmers are already in a shittier position than they were after the end of Season 1 since insiders have mercilessly dumped the shit out of the token. This fact, and this fact alone makes farmers feel like this dumping activity will continue, and I’m >99% certain that the vast majority of them aren’t praying for the end of Season 2 so that they can take their [$BLUR] bag and hold it, stake it (eventually?) for lower fees, etc 2) The opportunity cost of holding [$BLUR] >>> paying the base fee of 1%, any smart trader would gladly pay 1% (even more as some do on OS at 2.5x the fee that’s being proposed) as opposed to holding [$BLUR]) to save a maximum of 50bps on fees, if they hold 500k [$BLUR] ($77.8k at current market value), especially with the looming risk of being dumped on ruthlessly, cause everyone knows what happens to farm tokens 3) Given that a buyback would then go to simply burn the [$BLUR] acquired, when trading volume is nearly certain to fall after turning on the fee switch, will actually end up doing worse for the token than any good, and is simply a move to scratch the ponzi itch that doesn’t inherently benefit the token in any way, nor Blur users in any way, which should be the most important concern. 4) Would be better off factoring in turning on some type of fee switch to utilize Blend, which has ultimately had an adverse effect on the collections that have been activated on Blend as “lenders” (mostly, if not all retail) move to squeeze as many points as possible and borrowers (also mostly, if not all retail) default almost certainly, because A) no one has given much of a shit about holding the underlying NFT, just taking a short term call option & B) interest rates are fucking insane, and more people care about holding onto their [$ETH] in this market than they do about paying 999% APR on loans they took that were fucked to begin with. I literally think the only collection that has done well (price wise), and hasn’t taken a hit on price & liquidity out of all of the available collections available on Blend has been


iirc, but this is just top of head as I haven’t checked. 5) I just think this is a way to create some kind of value that doesn’t really currently exist with the [$BLUR] token itself, which only leads to further underperformance in the long run. (I do understand their position and reasoning for this as an investor though, this is likely why they were allowed to be on the cap table, you’ve got to go to bat for your port co’s)


Re: the fee tier incentive, asking traders to take on nearly $80k of exposure to save the maximum of 50bps sounds like a pretty poor tradeoff imo. They’d need to trade at least $8m worth of NFT’s at current market value of $BLUR, and even more (or less) dependent on $BLUR market value at any given time, in order to make even remote sense to buy and hold $BLUR to justify the value of the fee discount (as they’d still be paying $40k at current market value of $BLUR if they traded $8m worth of NFT’s and held 500k $BLUR.

1 Like