I see people wanting to impose restrictions on user compensation based on arbitrary cut offs. I think that is very short sighted and plain wrong.
If the intent is to do right by users and salvage paraswaps reputation, then placing such restrictions on recompensation defeats its whole purpose. If there is to be a refund, then all affected should benefit. Otherwise its better to forego the whole refund scheme since the amount of ridicule received is going to be the same. Paraswap of all projects should know this.
The optics issue aside, i believe it is fundamentally right that all users be compensated. It is paraswap that messed up, not users unable to revoke the correct contract on a specific timeline.
(I was not affected by the hack and have psp staked)
0x0000000000d67e5d5f991a40f04ed40fa3b150df
Please check this hacker who stole the funds without returning them. This address stole almost 100% of the funds within 2 hours after the announcement.
You can use Debank to better observe this wallet address.
So I think the teamâs decision to compensate the victims who were affected before the proposal was released is absolutely correct and the most responsible.
Refund for all user affected that have not yet refund is a good idea because how new people will trust paraswap if the current situation is not currently solve.
I really donât like the fact you push that to an express vote. As far as I know we still donât know where things went wrong and the extent of the responsability of the auditors or the team.
For me itâs like you switched the pressure on the DAO. Either we vote against and weâll responsible of the bad image that will outcome of this, or we vote for and itâs like sending the message that âhey no pressure of error happens, the DAO will pay for it anywayâ because thatâs not the first time big mistake happen.
You donât understand.
We full agree that users have to be refunded.
But here, the topic is Foundation asking for DAO treasury to pay the refund, after taking 3-4 months ago more than $500k to the DAO to âhire the best developers of the ecosystemâ.
Foundation have enough to pay. They are just putting the pressure on DAO because they canât assume what they did.
of course users need to be reimbursed thatâs not the issue here. The issue here itâs how it is rushed and with legitimate questions about responsabilities not answered
As a long-time investor in ParaSwap and an admirer of the team, I typically refrain from commenting on forums or social media. However, Iâve felt compelled to break this rule due to some harsh criticisms that need addressing. It seems some individuals continuously raise concerns about âresponsibility,â and Iâd like to pose a few questions to them:
Do you believe these fees magically appear out of nowhere?
If the team were to cease operations, would you still expect to receive fees? Remember, theyâre not obligated to work for you.
Who covers the costs of building and maintaining ParaSwap? What if these efforts were to halt?
Have you forgotten that the team sacrificed their revenue in favor of PSP 2.0, which didnât meet expectations, yet they remain dedicated and tirelessly working?
Perhaps they shouldnât continue. As an investor, my potential gains lie in ParaSwapâs growth by multiples, not in receiving 2-3 ETH per month. If they propose discontinuing the fee-sharing program to sustain development, Iâd vote in favor.
In essence, you must decide how much you rely on them, if at all. You cannot expect them to work for you for free while you reap all the benefits and they bear the risks.
Apologies for any bluntness: You seek ParaSwapâs potential upside, but the team doesnât necessarily need you, as the protocol operates and generates revenue independently.
And i would add, that for the future this is something we should clearly mention. If you stake PSP, you take the risk to loose part of your asset or revenue. In return you get a share of the revenue of the plateform. Exactly like on AAVE Plateform:
ââ AAVE, GHO, and ABPT holders (Ethereum network only) can stake their assets in the Safety Module to add more security to the protocol and earn Safety Incentives. In the case of a shortfall event, your stake can be slashed to cover the deficit, providing an additional layer of protection for the protocol. Learn more about risks involvedââ
This would remove a lot of discussion.
You are asking for blind trust which is weird.
All we are asking is for more detail to understand what went wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
I donât know why you bring the subject of the sharing revenue here because itâs irrelevant to the discussion, the vote is about taking money from the DAO not from the stacking users.
Your potential gains lie in paraswap growth, but how would you expect psp growth if there is no trust in the team (Not saying itâs the case right know) because of lack of transparency ? And donât act like psp growth wonât be corelated with real yield and psp 2.0 success.
Thank you for your response, but the team has been more transparent than ever and have made all the data available on their Twitter & socials⌠In the blockchain realm, verifying their claims is just an Etherscan away, so feel free to verify The details of the incident are widely circulated, so itâs unclear what additional steps you expect from them. With all of that & their extensive track record spanning multiple years, if you still harbor doubts, perhaps this project isnât the right fit for you?
Another blunt reality: The market doesnât value the Real Yield narrative (as in tech startups in general); otherwise, we would have witnessed corresponding price movements by now.
The details of the incident are widely circulated, so itâs unclear what additional steps you expect from them. With all of that & their extensive track record spanning multiple years, if you still harbor doubts, perhaps this project isnât the right fit for you?