The leverage can go down below 1X when you add money to the margin. We did it to prevent situation like flash crashes. We played safe and now we’re being emptied of even the remaining collateral. We’re a group of unsophisticated family/friends investors in the $100k~$400k range. The team already know our addresses, however they have been avoidant in any discussion related to the additional compensation.
11 Likes
I support this 100%. Why so many people support it but the team still choose to ignore it? Listen to what people said and give the victims additional reimbursement. Perpetual Protocol should take more responsibility for this. Don’t disappoint your users.
7 Likes
Max(op2,op4) for everyone <$1M is the best solution for this because it is fair to everyone. If Alameda is getting compensated, the large retail accounts should get their compensation too. The team should accept this proposal.
7 Likes
It is strange that the team does not compensate for the loss of its users from their own pockets. Why is not a single perp token spent?
4 Likes
I don’t agree that a random 10 people decided the fate of investors, I fully support that the team should help recoup losses.
3 Likes
I agree with compensating the retail investors first. The retail investors really don’t have any voice in the vote. They are the most helpless and suffered the most real life devastation under op2. They are also the ones that most other v2 users would sympathize with and thus have the most direct impact to the users’ confidence and the platform’s reputation. The institution investors probably have their own way to deal with this situation. Looking at the list of affected accounts, it looks like 0x000000ea89990a17Ec07a35Ac2BBb02214C50152 is claimed to be Wintermute and 0xbb327eBA8fC6085E8639E378FE86c73546ddab2D, 0xA0e04247d39eBc07f38ACca38Dc10E14fa8d6C98 both have > $1M in total open positions. Excluding these accounts will reduce the additional token compensation from $3.59M to $2.17M, a much easier number to take on for the Perp stakeholders. Of course I believe the Perp team should step up to confirm whether those 7-figure addresses are indeed institutions. I propose the Perp team should make additional Perp token compensation for the difference of op4-op2 for the retail users only, with the locking period of 1 year to avoid immediate price impact.
9 Likes
Nice point! I think it will increase the chance of the proposal.
1.find op2<op4 users
2.Exclude op4>700k whales
About 2 million perp tokens are needed
4 Likes
Pretty much exclude Wintermute + 7 figures open notional accounts from the list for this additional compensation because they are presumably institutional accounts. Doing the math of op4 - op2 on the remaining op2<op4 users, it gave me
Can anyone else confirm the number?
6 Likes
I sorted the sheet by op1 to quickly find op 2< op4 users, excluding the institution addresses. I also got $2165792.32.
5 Likes
I am one of those who is in these top 10 and I am NOT an INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNT. I’m a regular user just like everyone else. Stop attributing some magical FUND or INSTITUTIONAL status to accounts whose deposit size exceeds yours.
5 Likes
Are you the addresses outside of Wintermute? If so, we can at least exclude that one (0x000) as it’s claimed to be Wintermute’s account and to be excluded as mentioned by other users earlier in the post.
We hope the team would provide us with more information (e.g. the list of institutional account, the bottom line they would agree on the additional compensation etc.) We feel like the proposal will be impossible to pass if we ask for 3.6M but we don‘t want to mistakenly exclude other retail users. We hope the team could show some sincerity about this vote unless they don’t want it to pass at all.
Caveat: the intention of that pie chart was to help visualize position sizes by range, but it turns out there’s an important detail and I wouldn’t want it to be misleading.
The figures there are extrapolated from op1 from the simulation from the previous proposal. I multiply every op1 number by the factor with which all the small creditors would get 100% under op2/3 (this is a factor of ~6.987). With that count, there’s only 7 accounts >$1M, and of these only 0x000000ea89990a17Ec07a35Ac2BBb02214C50152 get a non-zero nor relatively minimal amount under op4.
I ignore exactly how the team performed the simulations, but I notice that those numbers differ slightly with the cumulative open notional amounts obtained from querying the contract, probably due to slippage considerations (in particular, it seems that other metric puts two more accounts above 0x000000, which is however descended to 700k – there’s no sign these are insitutionals or that we should exclude them).
IMHO the debate should be on whether we compensate all of the 19 accounts, without any exclusions, for which we’ll need $3.6M, or compensate 18 accounts, excluding 0x000000 (which could be justified if it’s confirmed that they’re institutional and that they can negotiate the request of their pound of flesh out of band, directly with the team), in which case we’ll need $2.8M
1 Like
Saw some chats about this issue and as a past v1 user and current v2 user I though I better comment since it looks that everyone here is on the same side.
I used v1 until v2 came out, then I switched. It was obvious that v1 would decend into a pvp sharkpool game and with users sucking down huge funding rates I mean it was so obvious how this would end. So I bailed.
Some people did not bail and went on sucking down degen funding rates and when the whole thing blew up now you want the rest of the Perp community, holders like me, to vote to debase my holdings to bail out degens who were sucking down degen funding…???
Let’s get this vote started! OP I think all you have to do is request to whitelist your address and we can start this vote and get this whole noise over and done with. It’s been 7 days, let’s go to the poll.
I really don’t want to restart my whole argument from scratch again. The issue is NOT that v1 blew up, the issue is how the team managed the blew up. Instead of naturally unwind via normal vAMM and compensate users fairly, the team Decided to put the decision to a “vote” where 3 out 4 options allow their investors Alameda to earn back $2.5M that should’ve been liquidated, via some centralized subjective rules. Not to mention Alameda just bought up all the Perp token before the vote to vote in their favor ,something that retail users cannot do. They took money from the unsophisticated mid-size retail accounts to compensate for small users to cover their PR while make their investor happy!? This is so disgusting, and now you’re calling us “noise”!? The funding rate was only high for the last couple days and it was capped. We didn’t stay because of that, we stayed because of the team’s constant reassurance that they will keep v1 running and because of our sincere hope that v1 will be back to normalcy. We trusted the team, and now we’re being emptied in addition to the losses from price slippage. We lost our whole life saving because of this, and there’s no way we will be silenced until it’s resolved. If you don’t care about the reputation of the platform and therefore the value of your perp token, feel free to vote “no”. We the “noise” will linger for eternity until the end of our lives. You had no idea the feeling that we are running through. You’re a heartless monster!
6 Likes
I propose we have a sign up sheet for the retail users who actually care about their money to weed out the passivate institutional users. For retail users that are op2<op4, please follow the instruction to obtain your wallet signature to indicate you’re interested in seeking compensations:
I propose we will give it 2 days for everyone to check their own addresses. If I lost my whole life’s saving, I would check on the governance forum every single day. Institution users who doesn’t even care probably won’t even check the governance post. This way we will weed out those users and compensate only the ones that really suffered the most.
Edit: Please follow the instruction in the sheet to obtain your wallet signatures, otherwise your check box won’t count! The signature is important to verify you’re indeed the owner of the wallet who is requesting the compensation.
1 Like
your idea here is interesting - but technically there still would need to be proof that a user that check marks proves that this is them by signing a message from their wallet
perhaps “iwantcompensation” and share the hash so it is verifiable that that user is the true owner
1 Like
Okay, I think I figured out. I think it’s a great idea! So for retail users who want to get compensated. Please go to https://www.myetherwallet.com/
-
Click on “Access My Wallet”
-
For Metamask wallets, click on “Browser Extension”
-
On the left side of the screen, click “Sign message”
-
Write “iwantcompensation”, then sign.
-
Copy the entire message into the signature row of the sign up sheet I posted earlier:
This way it can be verified that the wallet owner actually signed the message.
I propose we set a deadline of 2 days from now to weed out those institutional users who don’t really care.
3 Likes
2 days seems like a short time, especially with the weekend ahead, but IDK, it’s defensible that people with so much money in the line should be giving it top priority, if they care. A tweet or discord announcement by the team would help too.
Also, I’d consider a second column for if any of the affected parties wants to actively refuse the compensation as being proposed. Make them check that other column and sign an “ipolitelydeclinethatkindofcompensation”