In our opinion, Paraswap should return the fees after verifying that the account that created the proposal is legitimate.
Paraswap must not profit from crime if it has the ability to prevent it. We understand that this could set a precedent, leading to more claims that scammers have used Paraswap. However, we don’t think it’s feasible to evaluate and return fees from minor scammers, as verifying the validity of such claims would be extremely difficult. This case is different—it’s an issue that affects our industry as a whole, and protocols should work together to minimize the damage caused by this group.
Paraswap can retain a portion of the fees to cover the costs of processing the transaction and verifying the claim, but again, it must not profit from this crime. While the protocol is permissionless, this decision ultimately lies with delegates and token holders. Keeping funds generated from NK hackers carries legal implications.