Think this way : group 1 and 2 were already loyal and might sacrifice for the sake of protocol growth. However, not / partially compensating group 3, you might turn the victims into pure enemies against bZx. They’d take legal actions as well as bad PRs on your social channels until the full payment, since there’re the group with the least patience unlike group 1 and 2.
6 Likes
This sounds like the most reasonable proposal so far.
2 Likes
I’m sorry this is not a serious attempt at solving anything, it is just a way for BZRX holders to try to get a slick way out for themselves. Frankly, this is almost infuriating from the perspective of someone who has lost A LOT of their money in this hack [that not even an insurance is going to cover because it’s pure negligence by the team].
I own(ed) quite a lot of BZRX (and vBZRX) myself, but we need to find better approaches otherwise the trust in this community is gone forever. Think about it: who would ever place a single token into the protocol if it is common knowledge that the project bailed out BZRX holders and all others got rekt.
No, we need to do better and we will do better.
7 Likes
“all others got rekt”, where did you read this?
You are most probably referring to all those other protocols like Compound were users lost money and did not get anything back, but this isn’t the case here.
This is only part 1 out of 3, as it’s the quickest group to compensate without having potential backlash to the protocol itself, actually it’s strengthening it by having those guys actively participating in the voting and it shows we are serious in compensating the users as fast as we can.
The other groups will need more time to estimate how many losses there are, they are much bigger and need a different approach which is already being discussed in other threads.
maybe we can combine jokerba his proposal and this one. stakers/lenders who had ibzrx can easily 1:1 funded trough the treasury, since there where only be stolen 22m bzrx, excluding the developers bzrx. all others who suffered can have a depth token what jokerbra was proposing, if they are agree on that (details need to be made, buts a good start)
just my humble opinion, this is not strengthening the protocol, it is draining the backstop funds instead of spending it on the group that actually matters.
You could make a point that everyone should be in the same group, fair, but that BZRX holders come first… absolute worst mistake that the protocol could make and it would lose all credibility forever.
3 Likes
Who is going to guarantee that other groups will be compensated?
1 Like
I’m sorry but the proposals for compensating users is quite pathetic. As it seems users from each group are being prioritized differently. Furthermore, the simple fact that the developer had this information on his laptop is plain and simple gross negligence. Those of us with substantial losses are in the dark about when we will be compensated. In fact, I would say that those in the proposed group 3 will never get any compensation, based on bZx’s past history and how things currently look.
The most just plan for compensation is simply do away with these preposterous groups and return user funds at a 1 to 1 rate.
8 Likes
I think this is the best I’ve heard so far. We need to compensate BZRX holders first so the DAO can work and we can move on from here. Let’s get it done ASAP.
it the payout is on eth chain, it should be possible.
I thought they fully compensated users after the last one happened. Are you saying they didn’t?
they did. eveyone was fully compensated and i think it was with some profit (but im not 100% sure about that)
1 Like
Breaking into groups of ‘significance’ and ‘deserve’ is bound to lead to more issues. Organizing groups by holdings is logical - bZx holders, BTC holders, BUSD holders, etc…
Creating ‘category 1’ the ‘loyal group that matters’ (who also turns out to be the group with the most voting power) is such an obvious attempt to save oneself without considering how that: a) looks to current users b) looks to future users c) the 7700 hacked wallet addresses.
‘Loyalty’ is difficult to measure, and if it’s difficult to measure then it shouldn’t be used as the basis for an ‘objective’ choice.
1 Like
In regards to the frozen funds. How about returning them to the owners as they were their tokens to begin with.
That won’t work. Which wallet holder to return to?
Why wouldn’t that work? When lending out tokens on fulcrum wallets are provided associated itokens.
As a lot of people are going on about fairness, lets assume we managed to recover all bzrx, and you as a person whos lost tether, doesnt get recovered… would you feel the same if you didnt recieve a portion of the recovered funds… I think not.
It probably sounds right, when it suits our own personal situation, yet we would all feel very different if were not in the group that gets sorted first.
Personally ive changed my outlook, that i think everyone should be reimbursed over time, and in a fair manner, and in equal proportions
3 Likes
I’ll just leave this last comment. Everyone here is unhappy because an individual or group of individuals from North Korea has taken a number of other peoples assets and given them away to a another group of people (North Korean Government). In the process of doing so, some were frozen that could be given back to to those individuals affected. An individual or groups of individuals here don’t want do to that, they would rather take those other peoples assets and give them to another group of people.
1 Like
Thewanderer is completely correct. All USDT that was frozen and returned must to delivered back to each wallet that it was taken from and to the lending pool. Any other use of the USDT is theft. Individuals hold USDT precisely for the reason that it has an added level of protection. Compensation plan 1 starts only after all frozen and returned assets are distributed back to their original locations. Anything else is propagated theft.
4 Likes
Taking into account how you decide things around here I am afraid we will end up with this proposal. Can you publish other 2 parts? What’s your proposal for group 2 and 3?
1 Like