imo we already stated that we care about our members as holders that suffered from the bridge exploit made (more than) whole. That happened because it was not the fault of the holders, but the fault of the bridge contract. in this case here it is the fault of the holders that slept on various notifications for months.
every admin in the tg was more than willing to help, we even had how to videos. iirc even you made a guide how to swap to the mainnet.
i am still for reopening the bridge, idk though how much work this would be.
3 Likes
Blame is debatable. The bridge exploit is also the fault of the holders, because they chose to use a bridge which had not been audited. They knew the risks and were not responsible, they should have bridged their assets to native if they wanted to minimise risk. They should have taken better care of their assets.
My point is that we should choose leniency for the sake of growing our users and positive PR, as we don’t currently have a huge amount of them.
As for how it’s done? I don’t have an opinion yet. It could be that in 1-2 years we are in a position to easily help them, or there could be some other way to get it done sooner.
1 Like
we dont have tokens in the bridge to refund. They were moved to AZ.
Bsc wZNN bridging shudnt be a high priority rn.
But if sumamu team can launch a bridge to bsc with present code, maybe it’s easier. One way bridge only
1 Like
How about a “refund” that’s not a free lunch?
We use the 87K ZNN to add liquidity to Uniswap and lock it for a year. All Yield goes to AZ. Eventually, after a year of staking, anyone with BSC wZNN can burn and claim their LP stake.
Same output, not a free launch. AZ earns compensation as yield. If we megapump, investors suffer impermanent loss when withdrawing their share of the LP.
Only problem I see is the ETH liquidity counterpart. Otherwise we’ll have to forcefully sell their ZNN at current prices when adding liquidity.
Idea: AZ borrows wQSR and we create a wQSR-wZNN LP. Upon breaking the LP position, AZ claims the share of the wQSR and pays the BSC wZNN user submitting a claim.
There’s probably an elegant solution here.
Thoughts?
1 Like
I fail to see how this get rid of the fud that could and will blowback. As you said impermanent loss and the ETH side make it very complicated.
Instead of a relatively small amount of supply smoothly hitting the market, you’d need to straight dump half.
The QSR market is a math to explore though.
The network has a history of being good to its participants, and i agree its worth reducing the fud from this angle with the simplest solution possible.
It is bsc though so i dont think its needs to be pretty, snapshot(pre deprecation), burn the contract, whatevers the easiest way to make claims and we move on.
Recommend changing the thread title to avoid confusion in the future. We’ll have people reading this, thinking it pertains to PIVX.
The wisest, most comprehensive option that will age the most gracefully, is one that is:
- the most hands-off
- let’s the free market be a free market
- requires no arbitrary decisions, such as choosing a snapshot date
- removes wZNN from circulation
- mitigates or effectively eliminates the wZNN/wBNB LP
The only two viable options are to open a one-way bridge, or do nothing. The “bridge” (burn & swap) doesn’t have stay open forever, because a second or third swap & burn initiative could open at any time in the future, because it would simply work with respect for the wZNN token supply.
A retroactive snapshot would be an action that goes in direct opposition to the free actions that holders took to buy and sell after whatever arbitrary date might be chosen for the snapshot. Some holders plausibly actively traded wZNN numerous times against BNB and the broader market. We should refrain from trying to travel backward in time whenever possible. There’s nothing in the past for us.
A casual discussion about judging the past is a lot different from making an actual present-day decision that will affect the future. Let’s look in the right direction.
My observation is that every wZNN holder who came into chat after the bridge was closed, was met primarily ridiculed and derided. They were also advised that it’s possible that some kind of solution could arise and/or that whatever they decide to do with their BSC wZNN, was completely up to them.
If they sold or bought more BSC wZNN, or stayed in the LP (all three user cases exist), they did so on their own volition and their own physical button clicks, or lack thereof. Taking an action that retroactively negates the free actions of holders, will not stand well in the test of time.
Who will be the one to make an arbitrary snapshot & drop, that does nothing to remove BSC wZNN from circulation and write it into code?
Option 0 for awhile.
This should not be high priority, we have larger objectives ahead of us.
Appeasing people who had considerable advance notice will only introduce more drama to drag out.
If we expect people to hold their own keys, they should certainly be responsible enough to track their own investments.
I haven’t met a single professional investor in crypto, TradFi, or any asset class for that matter that does not keep close tabs on their investments, no matter how small.
There was 12+ months notice, drive on.
2 Likes
Wrong discussion, again.
As Hewwo stated, we can’t appease both sides of the market.
We have to decide between:
- making pre-bridge closure holders whole (snapshot)
- making current holders whole (burn contract)
- doing nothing (both sides are abandoned)
I see a surprising amount of contention in this thread and Telegram, specifically towards the notion of reimbursement. I was hoping more of you would be empathetic towards our returning alien brethren.
As others have mentioned, Mr Kaine refunded us when the bridge liquidity was rugged. We can continue in this spirit with the funds that we rugged on BSC.
In terms of the greatest benefit, I believe #1 will satisfy the most genuine holders at the expense of liquidity providers.
Though I appreciate their service, LPs are more experienced and should be much more vigilant of market forces. I would rather place the onus of responsibility on them than on passive holders with less experience.
That being said, I also see reasons why we should opt for burning the token, prioritizing current holders.
I like this outcome less, since our organization’s atrocious communication caused people to sell at a loss and we would be rewarding opportunistic speculators instead.
Is anyone going to mention it?
The arbitrage opportunity is currently 5:1.
I’ll volunteer for all options I presented in the original post. I won’t take action until we have some sort of consensus.
3 Likes
I think you should give those who have come back 1 last chance
3 Likes
I vote to just burn the whole wZNN supply on BSC. Make it a ritual to free CZ for more marketing hype. Stick “4” everywhere and summon @mehowbrainz
Bam. Pump.
1 Like
IMO the purpose of the 1 year depreciating bridge for BSC was intended to have the outcome we are now seeing.
If you made significant investments into ZNN and did not take action for an entire YEAR, that’s on you. There were several twitter posts leading up to the 1 year start and throughout the entire 1 year period.
Also, TG was active throughout the entire ordeal for those that would have needed help.
Snooze ya’ looze.
2 Likes
Sooooo wen poll guys? This way we can gauge the community’s opinion on this matter. From there we can discuss further.
1 Like
Wrong discussion, again. Stop struggling in attempt to find people you can blame. This is petty.
I updated the op with a poll.
If you made it this far in the thread, please consider voting.
2 Likes
I voted do nothing because this has happened to me and I accepted responsibility for not following the project closely. I’m open to changing my mind in the future.
Whatever the final decision is on who to reimburse and how much, i think two things we should do:
- Make it claimable and not airdropped - people who are long gone and/or not following the announcements are out of luck.
- Make it limited in time. A few weeks. Maybe a couple of months.
All unclaimed funds go back to treasury.
I think the snapshot should be that of yesterday - before posting this thread:
- Those who sold after deprecation knew they were giving up their znn, and don’t deserve to get it back.
- Those who bought after deprecation thought they were buying real znn, and should indeed get it.
- Anyone buying after this post is just gambling they might be getting very cheap znn.
2 Likes