I am one of the Babylon Finance users, I lost 6 figures combined in The Garden Of Eth and Stable Garden. We should imo be treated as individual users.
TRIBE users already voted to reimburse all hacked victims in the original vote, however result was ignored and a “new vote” was issued see https://twitter.com/samkazemian/status/1560922664943775745?s=20&t=KgFJE-2ex65nYEgxgvGxtg
we should advocate for full repayment to everyone regardless of individuals or daos, there are retails and individuals behind daos as well. if this proposal passes, daos like frax, olympus, balancer should start a litigation against @FeiLabs
Full repayment must be done, this is quite embarassing and disgraceful.
The tribe holders voting to raid the treasury for their personal gain, before all hack victims are paid back, is shameful and borderline fraud. There is nothing more valuable in life than Trust. If you continue with this plan, you’ll be permanently ruining your reputations and it will not pay off in the long run. No one could know this happened and trust you as a business partner, employee, or customer.
First, I’d like to thank @joey and the Fei Labs team. Fei has been at the forefront of multiple important experiments for DeFi as a whole; PCV, protocol:protocol mergers, and now, a DAO wind-down. These experiments are what future teams learn from, and build from–Fei will certainly have a chapter in a DeFi textbook one day!
Second, thank you for initiating a wind-down proposal to the DAO; it takes a lot of courage to recognize the need to make a hard decision, and to make it. Overall, this proposal will leave the entire Tribe ecosystem in a better place.
While DeFi might have its own rules and technologies, this wind-down process should learn from (or be inspired by) widely accepted principles from finance; that “creditors” be fully repaid before anybody else benefits.
- Everyone seems to agree that FEI stablecoin holders should be fully repaid (or fully backed following a wind-down); there seems to be disagreement (or misunderstanding) around how Rari hack victims will or should be repaid.
- As a first principle, it should not matter–at all–whether a hack victim was a smart contract/protocol or EAO. All users of a class should be treated equally and not discriminated against.
- This wind-down proposal very clearly trumps any previous snapshots, votes, or disagreements historically. Just because TRIBE voted at one point not to use PCV to compensate hack victims (when the protocol was ongoing), does not mean that PCV shouldn’t be used today (during a wind-down).
- For next steps, a list of hack victim addresses, and the amounts lost, should be circulated to inform this discussion.
This proposal is a major event for DeFi, and I am excited about the TRIBE rallying together to get it right.
Blacksage/Buckerino from the Uniswap Community over here.
I wanted to chip in with a couple of points. First of all, the past actions of the dev team regarding the payback of the hack victims was a mess. It was a mess, but it was not an illegal mess. Immoral? Sure, very much so.
However, reading this proposal raises some serious concerns regarding what legal liability the core developers might be forcing upon themselves. All the people who have mentioned the hack victims as creditors - this is pure non-sense. Fitting an incredibly specific term with a narrow definition onto the hack situation will not be upheld in any court.
On the other hand, the core developers might be exposing themselves to different types of lawsuits as there are glaring gaps which could be exploited by any capable lawyer out there.
It could be argued that the core developers of the protocols owe fiduciary duties against multiple stakeholders. This primarily concerns investors, but could extent to customers as well. Ignoring audit complaints, not publishing specific data upon which you base this proposal, and the lack of communication could all be construed as the core developer team is not acting in, “good faith” neglecting their fiduciary duties owed to the protocol and the stakeholders.
Also, another major sticking point could be the law concept of, “unjust enrichment”. This has been applied in some recent court cases in crypto hacks. Having a lawsuit based on such accusations could be also more easily proven given the allegations of insider trading shortly before this proposal hit the forums. Arguing the devs are trying to enrich themselves in an unjust manner given the recent hacks, the ample funds to wind down with dignity, and the suspicious trades could prove to be more trivial than you think.
My advice to the devs would be to make the victims whole, sell the tokens, and wind it down with whatever honor there is left on the table. There is no reason to be drawn into a long legal court battle where the odds are (most likely) stacked against you. Oh, and I forgot to add that there CERTAINLY WILL be a lawsuit if it passes in its current form.
This is an analysis on the Against votes in the second snapshot that prevented payout to Fuse hack victims (the first snapshot passed to repay all victims), Against votes were ~15M more than For votes, the top 5 against votes were all insiders/fei team/early investor and they accounted for more than 15M Against votes, and now the fei team is suggesting this proposal. I understand why people are bearish on DAO governance now, and this fact will probably weight against @FeiLabs
how about the unlock just before posting the proposal, is it all just a coincidence? TimelockedDelegator | Address 0x38afbf8128cc54323e216acde9516d281c4f1e5f | Etherscan
First things first, TIP-120 voting is live, and I just voted in favor : the tokens of Fei Labs team should return to the DAO if the Fei Labs team will stop contributing, I don’t see why anyone would vote against, it makes all TRIBE holders better-off. After execution, it will also provides more certainty on the numbers (fei/tribe circulating) to discuss the consolidation / fuse hack victim payment / final redemption.
Regarding TIP-121 (Fei Protocol’s transition to a governance-less state) : I’m obviously very disappointed by this turn of events, I’ve been here since genesis as a community member, and I really grew with FEI, but I think TIP-121 as outlined is an appropriate way forward, and I will support. Winding down the DAO is a complicated trade-off between all stakeholders and this seems to be a decent middle ground.
I originally wanted to draft a plan to keep the DAO around after Fei Labs’ departure, but with the project’s history and current state, it’s probably better to move on for everyone.
La Tribu is now employing 2 full-time devs (1 web, 1 solidity, I don’t count myself because I’m still a contractor to Fei Labs) in France, and we will stay around until the DAO shuts down, providing tools and numbers/reports to assist the community in these final governance proposals. We will create 3rd party front-ends to use the protocol when it reaches its final state (FEI and TRIBE redemptions), as well as provide some metrics on the final protocol, on fei-tools.com, which will stay live even if fei.money (owned by Fei Labs) goes out at some point.
Regarding the tokens, there was a 1-year cliff on the 4-year 1M TRIBE timelock, so the DAO will recover everything. On the 4-year 1.12M FEI timelock, there is around 132k FEI claimable right now, but I have not claimed anything so far for the company setup, lawyer fees, and past payrolls. We plan to work for the Tribe and keep the timelock running until the DAO shuts down, keep the vested amount as a buffer to continue to operate as a team, and return all unvested FEI to the DAO.
After the Tribe DAO shuts down, I will become a full-time member of La Tribu, and we will search our next adventure with other DAOs. If you’re interested in 3 full-time engineers (or less), please reach out to me we’ve been through some of the best web3 drama and operated a top-tier DeFi project for over a year.
Looking forward to discuss the details of next steps over the next weeks with you all.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Robert.
To make this happen, I am guessing we need a list of the victims’ addresses from each of the protocols who had deposits with Rari?
We have provided our list multiple times to FEI & Rari detailing the 1500+ Babylon users affected by this
Can anyone explain why funds in excess of $1.5M were withdrawn from healthy fuse pools 2 days before this announcement was made?
The funds were withdrawn by 0xB290f2F3FAd4E540D0550985951Cdad2711ac34A through the Fuse Fee Distrubutor contract, using a function exclusive to Rari devs.
Thaking people’s private deposits without notice or explanation, to the tune of millions, seems downright criminal.
I should mention this is only what was taken from pool 6, and only 3 days ago. Several hundred thousand dolars were withdrawn on top of that over the past year, and millions more were taken from other pools in the past days alone.
Great feedback here. This sounds like the most fair route.
As a TRIBE and FEI investor from the launch, I’m hoping the leadership rewards early and long standing hodlers and continues to be as transparent as possible.
Is there a clean accounting anywhere of hack victims by address + assets lost in each coin?
Would be nice if the team could provide a model for the numbers they proposed just as a starting point?
Fuse accrues fees from interest earned by lenders. The fees can be withdrawn at any time by any address so long as there is available liquidity. Only then can they be moved by the Fuse admin. At no point does claiming fees take any users’ deposits. This is revenue accrued to the protocol.
Tribe holders can elect to use these fees however they like. In a previous post I suggested they be used to reimburse hack victims.
Ok, nice. I was concerned because many stable pools unaffected by the hack are sitting at 0 liquidity, I guess that is just due to a bank run on collateral. I do suggest that if the protocol is retired/wound down, all open positions should be liquidated, since there’s no telling if anyone will continue running arb bots into the future.
Thanks for supporting the repayment. As for considering cTokens holders as “creditors”, since it was mentioned a few times, their situation is similar to depositors in a brick-and-mortar bank. They deposit, get an interest, while the bank makes loans. If the bank goes bust, then the depositors have a right in the liquidation procedure.
Rari wasn’t 100% decentralized and governance-less (there’s an admin, they stopped borrowing and pulled fees/liquidity…), it follows thus the “bank” model. Rari’s part of Tribe, Thus, it has to repay its creditors.
“Best web3 drama”, nice to see you’re finding a silver lining in all of this! Surely will look great on resume
Yes, its a joke, and the Fei team and the way they acted will go down as one of those disasters ppl will point to as a prime example of why DAOs and DeFi are not to be taken seriously. Much damage has been done and I don’t believe that to be an exaggeration.