I want to highlight that this proposal raises significant issues in terms of governance and DeFi philosophy.
From an ethical standpoint, returning the 44.67 wETH to Bybit can be seen as an act of solidarity and good faith, strengthening trust between centralized and decentralized platforms. This action would send a positive message about ParaSwap’s community responsibility in a context where fund security is a major concern.
However, from the perspective of decentralization and cypherpunk principles, this restitution could be problematic. ParaSwap did not steal these funds; they were collected through legitimate transaction fees. Agreeing to return these funds could set a precedent where DeFi platforms become forced arbitrators in situations they are not directly involved in. Over time, this could weaken the protocol’s autonomy and neutrality.
The key question is: do we want to set a precedent where ParaSwap (and DeFi more broadly) becomes responsible for CEX security failures? Or do we want to reaffirm that, in a decentralized system, each actor must take responsibility for their own risks?
If restitution is considered, it would be relevant to clarify the criteria that could justify such decisions in the future to avoid arbitrary interventions that could harm the protocol’s credibility. An alternative could be a partial contribution or a more nuanced approach rather than a full reimbursement.