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
next week will be a new detailed proposal online, if we find consensus in this we can start the voting round.
I propose that the bzrx holders get paid the same percentage as all other token holders at an immediate date. If it is given out in an even ratio; say 10% it shouldn’t change voting capabilities. If it’s not given out 100% at the same time to bzrx holders, it can’t dump. If it’s not given out 100% at the same time, to bzrx holders, it will prove the good intentions behind the DAO and central team. If it’s not given out 100% at the same time to bzrx holders, more liquidity exists for everyone to be getting a compensation faster…
The ethical and practical reasons reasons for not paying out 1:1, 100% to the bzrx holders all at once seem to strongly outweigh the reasons to do so. I have heard reasons of ‘rewarding their loyalty’ ‘supporting long term holders’ etc… these are very weak arguments with insubstantial evidence and measurability. The majority on this forum and in telegram also all support this view. If the final proposal and vote supports 100% immediate payout to bzrx holders, I am afraid this will all turn into a scandal rather than an unfortunate incident.
You have to take a snapshot on the date the hack took place and compensate in USD.
I strongly disagree.
A loss is a loss and it is very hard to argue wether one group should be compensated and the other group not. In this forum you can find arguments for every group, why they should be favored.
And let me guess, your losses belong exclusively to the first group?
1 Like
Has any compensation been paid out yet? Or are proposals still being voted on?
Where are the new details?