Alameda’s wallets. Only ETH margin on this wallets exceeds USD 10mln. Also it’s them who’s been liquidated on CREAM. IMO it would be correct to add the option of not compensating whales like them who didn’t bring any value to the protocol, just risks. They didn’t do any active trading, didn’t generate a lot fees therefore, just reaped funding .
The split plan will not include the above 5 Alameda’s wallets
(Include other compensation in the future)
Yes -The split plan will not include the above 5 Alameda’s wallets
No - Put the above 5 Alameda’s wallets Included in the penny plan
I understand that this should be an addendum to the vote currently taking place (Snapshot). This is, the exclusion of Alameda, if approved, should be done as a first step on top of whatever option wins that vote. Therefore, it is rather urgent that this addendum gets discussed and put to vote quickly, to avoid delaying the settlement.
The rationale is simple and I think it should easily gain sympathy by the community. Let me simply restate it with my own words for if it hasn’t been sufficiently clear:
We acknowledge that Alameda invested lawfully and played according to the rules. The V1 protocol was flawed, which isn’t Alameda’s fault. However, Alameda’s size amplified those flaws (which were known and judged mild, as stated with the launch of V2) thus creating a big systemic risk. Roughly one fourth of the insurance fund drain was going to Alameda alone. This is how it dried up earlier than anticipated.
As a consequence, it wouldn’t be fair that Alameda gets compensated in the same terms as the other, smaller claimants.
This topic was automatically closed after 16 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.