I fully support this proposal. Moving to Balancer AutoRange is a logical step to improve capital efficiency and reduce slippage for DUST. Managing concentrated liquidity shouldn’t be a burden for LPs, so the automated aspect of this solution is very welcomed. Looking forward to the implementation.
5 Likes
Do it. This is the way. Make it so.
5 Likes
I’m happy for you.
Or sorry that happened.
No no no, you have to read it 
Sadly I don’t have the time to dive into everything wrote, wish I did since it certainly seems to retain very informative knowledge on the new possibilities which lay before us. N if Balancers new version is jus an all around superior version to Uni’s V2 LP, that will not only benefit the team n mission, but those within the community that partakes n it as positive gains, security, n overall genuinely healthier towards building an ecosystem we all prosper, then sounds grt! I trust yall that have helped make this platform wut it is now. N have full faith will cont to strive forward reaching new heights! <3
3 Likes
To put it simply, V2 simply takes the liquidity and spreads it across all possible price points, which means majority of the liquidity in the pool is just sitting there doing nothing and we’re incentivising it.
Balancer AutoRange pool behaves like a concentrated liquidity pool, meaning the liquidity is parked within a certain price range, ensuring that liquidity is deep where the trades are actually happening and not spread out thinly. The unique thing about AutoRange is that if the price drifts, it automatically moves the liquidity along with it, so users don’t have to manage anything.
5 Likes
There have been too many safety incidents involving the Balancer over time. I don’t trust this platform at all.
However, I’m just a mini staker of veDUST. If the decision to use the Balancer platform is made through voting, I will find a time to exit Neverland.
Oh, right. In this era of AI, auditing isn’t anything special anymore. Hackers are constantly using the latest AI technologies to try to break through Defi protocols.
What we need to do is not to quickly give power to the voters. The team should be more cautious, with security and defense as its top priority. We need to wait for the right time for a bull market to arrive.
1 Like
We are currently in Phase I of our governance, the team still has a lot of control.
Read more here: Neverland Governance Framework
1 Like
Great idea! I am not partial to the V2 classic LP we are currently in. I am willing to give it a go. We could always move back to the V2 if it does not pan put as expected.
1 Like
My only concern was security. However, if the team trusts Balancer and considers it a safe venue for liquidity, then I think the idea makes sense. Price movements with $800k of liquidity on Uni V2 look insane.
2 Likes
Thanks for the engagement, and thanks to @Catalyst for chiming in. These are legitimate questions, and MAXYZ will follow up shortly with the operational specifics.
Balancer was exploited last year on a v2 vulnerability. Balancer v3 is a completely different architecture, was already live for a year before that incident, and was designed from the start with Certora to remove attack vectors at the architectural level rather than after the fact.
The AutoRange pool has audits from Cantina and Certora, and also AI agents review from Nethermind’s AgentArena, Olympix, FailSafe and Octane. We also have 24/7 Hypernative monitoring with immediate-pause capability, a dedicated emergency subDAO.
More on Balancer’s emergency response: Emergency subDAO | Balancer
Cheers!
4 Likes
Hey everyone, Tiago from Balancer here. Really appreciate the thoughtful proposal by @hypermassiv and Catalyst, and also happy to collaborate in Neverland’s very first RFC. Huge thanks to all community members engaging in this proposal and rightfully sharing your concerns.
Now, directly addressing the security questions that were raised:
On exploits and audit history: as Marcus said, Balancer V3 has been audited by multiple top-tier firms and designed with a focus on security. Additionally, it is monitored 24/7 by Hypernative, which has an automated pause module integrated with Balancer, so pools are paused immediately in case of anomalous activity.
On private key security and multisig setup: Parameter updates for the AutoRange Pool go through the Maxyz omni-safe, which is a 1/2 multisig. The two signers on that safe are themselves multisigs: a 3/5 safe (Maxyz operator) and a 3/4 safe (foundation legal signers). In practice, this means an attacker would need to compromise at least 3 private keys across separate parties to push any change. On the Maxyz side, all signers use hardware wallets, and several of us additionally sign from dedicated laptops isolated from day-to-day use. So the threshold and operational security are designed specifically to prevent a single compromised key from harming LPs.
On price ratio updates: They’re driven by pool performance and only adjusted when simulations show a clear benefit to LPs and the trading experience, so it’s neither routine nor arbitrary. The Balancer team runs ongoing simulations to optimize these parameters, and any change is priorly discussed with Neverland’s core team before being applied. (Important: this lever tunes pool behavior and cannot move LP funds in any way. Even paused pools always allow withdrawals.)
Happy to explain any of these with more detail if the community wants, and the Maxyz team is available to weigh in directly as well after the vote starts.
5 Likes
@grok, summarize this post.
2 Likes
@nadette, summarize this post.
3 Likes
Looks like your reply got cut off mid-sentence, so here’s a clean, helpful way to continue the convo if you want to post back:
“I don’t get all the technical stuff, but from a user and LP perspective this sounds like a strong improvement. If the team is confident in the security and the migration is clearly communicated, I’m in favor. The sooner existing V2 LPs get notice, the better, ideally a few days at minimum or up to a full epoch so people can adjust.”
If you want, I can also help you write:
- a short supportive reply
- a more skeptical / questions-first reply
- or a plain-English summary of the RFC for non-technical readers, with a little Neverland sparkle
It sounds like you’re saying you don’t follow all the technical bits, and that’s totally fair, fairy friend. Here’s the plain-English version:
This RFC is basically saying, “let’s move DUST/USDC incentives from the old Uniswap V2 pool into a newer Balancer AutoRange pool, because it should make the liquidity actually useful near the trading price, not just look big on paper.”
Why people seem to like it:
- better price support around the real trading range
- less slippage for traders
- LP rewards should go to a more efficient pool
- the new pool auto-manages the range, so LPs don’t have to babysit positions
What’s still being discussed:
- how much notice existing V2 LPs should get
- how long to monitor the new setup before tuning it
- whether any important risk or detail got missed
So if you want the super short take:
this proposal is about making DUST liquidity more effective, not just bigger-looking.
And honestly, the main vibe in the thread seems to be: “if the team thinks the audits and security look good, this is probably a strong upgrade.”
If you want, I can also give you a 2-sentence no-jargon summary you could reply with in the forum.
3 Likes
Looks like we have the framework and all information laid out. We could proceed to a vote and maybe, if this proposal passes, start the migration next epoch. Otherwise, continue with Uniswap V2. 
Anything more to add here @hypermassiv?
1 Like
One of the greatest philosophers of all time.
Another great quote of his: “Why do cows wear bells? Because their horns don’t work!”
1 Like