PEP-07 - Grant Request From the ParaSwap Foundation Regarding March 20th Vulnerability

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)

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.

1 Like

So I think the team’s decision to compensate the victims who were affected before the proposal was released is absolutely correct and the most responsible.

Yes. This is fair yo refund them.

I don’t think it should be DAO responsability to refund users hacked. Because Foundation took $500k now worth +$1M less than 6 months ago.

So they have enough to refund. But ok let’s refund with DAO money again.

But I just wanted to be sure that people that will wake up in 2 weeks won’t be refunded following this proposal.

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.

The Proposal is now live for voting on Snapshot

1 Like

I really don’t like the fact you push that to an express vote. As far as I know we still don’t know where things went wrong and the extent of the responsability of the auditors or the team.

For me it’s like you switched the pressure on the DAO. Either we vote against and we’ll responsible of the bad image that will outcome of this, or we vote for and it’s like sending the message that “hey no pressure of error happens, the DAO will pay for it anyway” because that’s not the first time big mistake happen.

I really don’t like this tbh.


It’s like you are not affected by the exploit. Then who will pay the refund? This is paraswap fault not the user ofcourse we need a refund!!!

You don’t 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 “hire the best developers of the ecosystem”.

Foundation have enough to pay. They are just putting the pressure on DAO because they can’t assume what they did.


of course users need to be reimbursed that’s not the issue here. The issue here it’s how it is rushed and with legitimate questions about responsabilities not answered


I truly believe this is absolutely not the case here but…

What if the hack came from the inside? We don’t have time to investigate.

(Again, I know this is not the current situation, but it could be if this was another project, less known etc)

Hello everyone,

As a long-time investor in ParaSwap and an admirer of the team, I typically refrain from commenting on forums or social media. However, I’ve felt compelled to break this rule due to some harsh criticisms that need addressing. It seems some individuals continuously raise concerns about “responsibility,” and I’d 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, they’re 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 didn’t meet expectations, yet they remain dedicated and tirelessly working?
  • Perhaps they shouldn’t continue. As an investor, my potential gains lie in ParaSwap’s growth by multiples, not in receiving 2-3 ETH per month. If they propose discontinuing the fee-sharing program to sustain development, I’d 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 ParaSwap’s potential upside, but the team doesn’t necessarily need you, as the protocol operates and generates revenue independently.


I totally agree with you.

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:
‘’ 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 involved’’
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 don’t know why you bring the subject of the sharing revenue here because it’s 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 it’s the case right know) because of lack of transparency ? And don’t act like psp growth won’t be corelated with real yield and psp 2.0 success.

1 Like

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 :wink: The details of the incident are widely circulated, so it’s 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 isn’t the right fit for you?

Another blunt reality: The market doesn’t value the Real Yield narrative (as in tech startups in general); otherwise, we would have witnessed corresponding price movements by now.


Totally agree they are transparent about what is all happening about paraswap