Maybe a bit late, but as a early Raft supporter/user I’ll try to explain why not compensating people who bought R after the exploit is totally wrong and unfair.
I’m using Raft from the beginning. I had CDP, R savings deposit, R-DAI liquidity in Balancer. When the exploit happened I crunched the information available and concluded that the backing of R tokens is at least 50%. So when the price broke through 60 cents I started buying and spent most of my liquid stables to buy R in 0.50-0.60 price range. The rationality behind this decision? I assumed that more exploits was not likely (pools have been almost completely drained) and thus, buying for ~.5x is acceptable risk (I’m completely OK if I lose 10 or 15%) in exchange of supporting Raft and a slight chance for a bonus if situation somehow turns somewhat better.
What I mean by “supporting Raft”? De facto I was exit liquidity for other panicked Raft users who rushed to sell and because of me someone was able to sell at better rate thanks to my buy orders. In other words, I prevented someone to take a loss and sell below book value of R.
And what I’m receiving for that - 100% loss. I can’t find any logic in that.
The right decision is to compensate users who bought R until Raft’s post saying to not buy R.
For the communists the free market is always a speculation.
how is that reasonable when the protocol did not mention that all the ones trading will be omitted. I am not talking about the ones that bought speculatively . I am just talking about the ones that removed LP or the ones that tried selling despite being depleted. this makes no sense in your argument
this is well said and articulated
Thank you for considering everyone’s comment. We have been long time supporters of Raft and R. Held R (or LP position) at the time of the exploit. I see one major problem with the proposal that needs to be addressed.
The Trading Activity Restriction makes little sense and is grossly unfair.
Scenario: You held 500k R (or LP position etc) at the time of the exploit. You saw the news of the hack and sold 1,000 R, all of a sudden you would be ineligible under this proposal.
- There were no communication of a trading restriction
- Why would the whole wallet be ineligible?
Thanks again for taking feedback into consideration - this is a critical revision that needs to be made.
I believe Waple’s post hits the nail on the head in regards to the selling of R. A lot of other posts in this forum echo similar thoughts and it seems like these have been taken on board in Pujeetmanot’s post. Looking forward to the revised plan which should be a lot fairer.
It does seem harsh that someone who has sold a fraction gets penalised on the full amount.
Similar for someone who was already exposed and bought more.
Something like exposure at time of event - amount sold and still not rewarding buys after the incident would be better imo.
Why no compensation for R-Raft LP hoder???Total value of R-Raft dump down 80% after R was attacked.
Without compensation, I’m sure no one will hold raft in the future.
Hey, I can see there’s 264k that have not been claimed from the recovery plan.
Can we clarify whether this will go back pro-rata to LPs that lost their money? I heard previously that the team was considering keeping it for the “treasury” - if that’s the case that’s more than concerning that the team considers keeping it for themselves