dreamon.eth

Just saw that many people seems doesn't really understand on how @blackhaven works and operate. → BAM (Backing Arbitrage Module) is planned and may not be live at launch. → Until BAM is on, RBT can trade away from NAV with no automatic correction. Genesis trading = higher peg risk. Size positions accordingly. → Once BAM is live, NAV becomes an active anchor (mechanical floor/ceiling). Until then, it’s just a reference. Two prices exist at once - NAV: reserves ÷ circulating RBT (on-chain). “Collateral value.” - Market price: what the RBT-USDm pool trades at. They won’t usually match. BAM’s job is to shrink the gap. NAV moves only when reserves or supply change; market price moves with trades. - ➠ When Market Price > NAV (premium): - BAM sells RBT into the market. - USDm from sales goes to reserves → NAV rises. - Selling pressure pushes price down toward NAV. - Bigger premium → bigger action (with cooldowns). Net effect: the protocol issues into a premium, strengthens backing, and compresses the spread (expansion). - ➠ When Market Price < NAV (discount) - BAM buys RBT with reserves and burns it. - Reserves drop, but supply drops faster → NAV per token rises. - Buy pressure pushes price up toward NAV. Net effect: buying below NAV is accretive to remaining holders (contraction). ➠ How NAV can grow without BAM Reserves also grow from: - Bond issuance (90% of each USDm bond to backing) - Returns from whitelisted MegaETH DeFi strategies - MegaETH points + retained MEGA - Forfeitures (early-exit fees, forfeited distributions/unvested RBT) - BAM proceeds during premium sells Most of these add reserves without increasing circulating supply. - There are many @megaeth users dissatisfied with Blackhaven’s approach, especially since it’s live on Mega Terminal. The core issue, though, was transparency and communication. Many felt the marketing framed it as stable/reserve-backed while key safeguards weren’t in place (BAM isn’t live yet). The bonding UX and disclosures also seemed too implicit. Users saw bond discounts and the market price, but the “backed price”/NAV wasn’t obvious or clearly surfaced. Some didn’t realize they were buying into an already-live DEX token that had been front-run, or that after the lock period they’d receive RBT (not the stable USDm). The 10% fee was also widely criticized as greedy. This resulted in massive instant losses for early bonders and buyers who expected a “reserve-backed” product to hold its value.