Refund LP Holders for the 2/11 Outage

Early liquidity providers should be reimbursed. I support this proposal.

1 Like

I support this proposal too as I was affected by the outage and we early Pangolin bros deserve to get reimbursed.
I promise I wont dump it.

Was not apart of this, i’m tempted to say the rewards were that good to let it go. At the same time people in early were there for a reason to make those gains.

I’m neutral on it.

It was in fact Pangolin specific and I don’t think you understand what happened. Pangolin rewards were being distributed for providing liquidity. At one point in the day they stopped, when you asked any of the devs or anyone else providing liquidity the answer was that it was just a UI bug. This obviously eventually wasn’t the case, and people soon realised that and everyone withdrew their liquidity from the pools.

Trading was STILL active during this time. Early liquidity providers should be rewards for taking additional risks, not punished because the system had an outage. I kept my liquidity specifically because I thought the reward would outweigh the risk.

Sounds fair. I support.

1 Like

Fine by me, just sad that I wasn’t there when it happened LOL.

Can you please point me to the technical evidence that confirms this was a pangolin specific problem ? I’d love to see this and get educated.

Separately, even if it is a pangolin specific problem, again early risk takers are exactly that - early risk takers. You get the reward if your bet pays off, and you get burned if you are wrong. It’s really strange to expect to be “backstopped” because you took the risks early. The world doesn’t work this way at all.

Remember, I’m in this bucket also, and it just doesn’t make sense to reward ME extra over the rest of the community.

If anything, the issues the C-Chain had led to a lot of people jumping OUT of the game which in turn clearly led to sustained higher rates of PNG distribution per AVAX since the resolution of the issue. Simply look at the price action since the C-chain issue. Prices drop, which implies there is selling pressure, which implies the FOMO is over and the “quick buck” people left the scene. It simpler words, if you have been keeping your PGL, you have been earning the rewards that you are seeking already because the rates are higher than what it would have been had there been no issue :wink:

Let’s stop trying to milk community funds for our own gains guys. Let’s focus on the actual mission of creating better alternative liquidity to the CEXs etc.

4 Likes

The response given at the time of the outage was not clear or concise. Its too much work for me to provide “technical evidence” because if you were also in the same bucket you would have also noticed what happened. I will break it down for you in case you missed it.

1)Double spend occured on the EVM
2)Network successfully slowed to a halt, bridges went down
3)C Chain resumed functionality
4)PNG works and is distributing rewards and collecting fees
5)1 day later PNG randomly stops distributing rewards for about 12 hours
6)Bridges are back a few days later

. The official response when they finally made a statement was that it will be resolved with governance later, which is exactly what is happening. I don’t understand why you don’t want people to collect the rewards that were owed to them. There was nothing else wrong with PNG at the time, fees were still being collected as well.

Mathematically guaranteed rewards should not be considered optional provided the entire rest of the network is working.

Also “providing better liquidity than CEXs” which would be accomplished by rewarding liquidity providers their guaranteed rewards. Being able to use them to add more liquidity.

@GinnysMole I appreciate your fervor, and let me do the “too much work” to get you some evidence at least for the C-Chain related issue.

Take a look at this (and ideally I would expect you to edit your post after so we remove the inaccuracies but we’ll see :)):

Regarding your point around “clarity”, I wholeheartedly agree, the information wasn’t clear nor concise. These are usually challenging times, even the most established and centralized companies fail at this point, and the ability to understand and then communicate to users becomes even more complex when the technology involved is novel and complex. I’m not sure how this can be solved, but certainly gets worse when the product in question is managed in a “decentralized” and “ownerless” way also.

I’m not arguing mathematically guaranteed rewards to be optional.
So let’s move to the practical side, I’d love to hear and discuss your solution on identifying users entitled to additional rewards which include:

  • People who already had PGL tokens
  • People who couldn’t acquire PGL tokens cause the transactional capability disappeared
  • People couldn’t move additional assets because the bridges weren’t working anymore
  • People who wanted to add liquidity, but noticed the outage and waited for the resolution to participate

If you can propose a way to identify and solve the above, I will support this proposal hands-down.

My view is the time you claim to have lost personally, was time lost for the entire community, not just you, hence rewarding the subset doesn’t make sense.

One more thing that occurred to me and want to get your view on also, applying the same logic that says “we should reward folks for the outage” in reverse, how do we “claw-back” the rewards that were given to folks who joined as soon as pangolin launched and disappeared immediately after the issue was resolved ?

Moving onto your last point, I thought me describing my logic and opinion about why this type of a refund is not beneficial was part of the governance process where every member of the community get a voice/vote :wink: So I view this as the governance process, if there was a unilateral authority to make a decision to randomly award a subset of the folks, I’d be out of here after the rewards!

1 Like

I really don’t think youre on the same page as everyone else. PNG was working fine, the bug had already been patched. Rewards WERE being distributed and they randomly stopped. Pangolin should never stop distributing rewards unless there was either a governance vote, or a bug. And if there’s a possibility to refund those liquidiy providers with their lost rewards, then it should be done. A far worse precedent to set would be to allow bugs on your platform then not refund the parties accordingly.

And yeah, some people couldn’t provide liquidity because the bridge was down. It doesn’t matter, what matters is the people that did provide liquidity were getting leeched by arbitrage traders with no rewards. Further amplified by the suggestions of the community telling you to withdraw liquidity and add it back in that rewards were still being processed, thus making the IL permanent.

1 Like

i could be looking at the wrong dates actually. Let me find the exact date im thinking of

Wow ok, understood, only you matter and the rest don’t, difficult to argue with that one.

Point received and let’s just agree to disagree.

Why don’t you fix your incorrect statement regarding the EVM and let’s call it a day?

Have a great weekend bud, I’m looking forward to this vote when it happens!

I was looking at the wrong dates, referring to the feb13th or 14th. PNG rewards stopped being distributed for 10-12 hours. And yeah this isn’t a charity, I still care about the good of the network because it will only net me more money. I do agree if the exchange wasn’t functional then there shouldnt be any rewards processed, but if it was working there is no excuse (13-14 outage).

No need to get emotional bro.

LPs supported Pangolin at that time. So, sounds good to me…

2 Likes

This point 1) is unreadable mate!
Please update this because there wasn’t any double spending on the C-Chain, a guy also posted you a medium from the team explaining the bug dynamics.

Please update it!

1 Like

I don’t want to get into a semantical argument but the fact of the matter is that the same funds were spent seven times. So I guess you could call it a septuple spend. The only thing that saved this was the EVM reacting appropriately (going down).

You’re right.Support

Code is law. If code does not run on a decentralised network, then code does not run.

If we give ~175k PNG tokens to those affected by the outage, should we also give ~N tokens to those who couldn’t transfer from Binance in order to get rewarded on Pangolin? What about those who couldn’t join Pangolin pools because the network was out? Bad idea.

2 Likes

I’m against, affected by the outage heavily but this proposal goes against immutability.
Even downtime should be immutable imo.

Take your losses and move on =)

1 Like

I support this proposal.