I know for a fact that I for one wasn’t doing anything you’ve suggested.
One piece of evidence you can see for this is that I, and other users, were holding below 1.0x long positions. The collateral that brings one below 1.0x leverage is useless to prevent liquidation. We just didn’t think it was that risky, and trusted Perp.
I was simply holding a hedge position. I hadn’t touched the position in months. I checked in occasionally to make sure everything was okay, and expected yield based on 30 day histories was about 8% APY, and in line with what you might have expected to find on centralized Perpetuals like BitMEX in the past so everything seemed normal to me.
You seem to argue that users who were farming insanely high 700% APY should be punished. What does that mean about all the users that were farming 8% APY, who had no idea 700% was happening in recent market conditions?
The fact that users had long positions with less than 1.0x leverage proves that not all users understood this to be some sort of “shark pvp game” as one user in this thread suggested.
Because otherwise they would have at minimum withdrawn excess collateral. Having 0.9x leverage does absolutely nothing to help us in a long position. We obviously didn’t see serious danger or “shark pvp”.
I mean it was so obvious how this would end.
If that is true, then the Perp team should have done something to prevent a chaotic collapse, right?
I don’t want to blame the Perp team as your logic seems to do.
I don’t think it’s in the best interest of Perpetual Protocol for the message to future users to be that the team will not help prevent damage to users, and that sometimes it’s just “shark pvp”.
Which instrument was it that gave you only 8% APY? Standart funding on CEX gives around 14% APY. Perp as far as I could see in general gave 3-10x of it.
If they still have the mood to go on a weekend vocation after losing their whole life’s saving, it’s obviously they are institution users. Retail users would actually have more time during their weekend to check out the governance post because they are off from their day job. For institutions, no one work during the weekend, this would be a perfect filter to weed out those users to increase the chance of the vote passing.
I disagree with the second part, it doesn’t make sense for them to go through the trouble just to indicate they don’t want compensation. This doesn’t make too much sense to me.
@Long-run-view Many users have expressed their support for the sign up sheet idea in this thread. Will you take action and make it part of the options in the vote? For example, “option 3: Only compensate retail users with (op4-op2) who have verified their addresses in the sign up sheet, while nonchalant users who did not care enough to sign up are excluded.”
By the way, in the first two options, I believe it should be (Op4 - op2) for users op2<op4.
I propose we should specify the locking period to be 1 year in the first two options, so that the Perp holder knows it essentially has 0 impact on their Perp token’s price in the near term. This will further enhance the chance of passing.
Going with 3 days as the sign-up period, the original post regarding the sign-up sheet was timestamped on June 3rd, 7:40AM UTC.
So the deadline to sign up will be June 6th, 2022 7:40AM UTC or 2022-06-06T07:40:00Z at your time zones.
Please enter the wallet signatures via the instruction of the sheet or your checkbox won’t count!! The signature was needed to verify you’re indeed the owner of the wallet.
The version histories/edits on the spreadsheet are also visible to anyone. To see them: You must be logged in with a gmail account, then click File → Version History.
The time limit to sign the spreadsheet is almost elapsed. If you don’t see your address in that list and you want compensation, then please sign the spreadsheet.
This is the most recent list of signatures that I have received from the spreadsheet and also an additional late signature received via DM on Discord.
I think the spirit of the spreadsheet is to capture anyone who cares enough about this loss to sign the spreadsheet. In that spirit I have included the laggards.
The total cost of reimbursement to these addresses is $1279142.76.
If anyone else does not see their address on this list, please write your signature in this thread, or DM me on Discord, or write it to the Discord v1 chat.
The time to sign has expired but I think we should consider any additional late signatures.
Let’s be giving the community the choice between this proposal and full compensation thread that’s also going. I personally prefer this one. But this should be up to a vote.
Funds for this proposal will come from existing Perpetual DAO tokens. No new PERP will be minted for this proposal.
The amount of PERP these users receive is set at the time of this vote concluding, but there is a 1 year time lock before these users can receive their PERP.
Proposal A: Compensate all users who received less in Opt2 than they would in Opt4 by providing them with the amount Opt4-Opt2. This cost is $3.59 million. 1 year time lock on PERP distribution.
For example if user 0xABC received $31k in Option 2 but would have received $50k in Option 4, then this user would get $19k worth of PERP from the DAO in this proposal.
Proposal B: Same as Proposal 1 except only compensate users who signed the compensation spreadsheet (see addresses below). This cost is $1.28 million. 1 year time lock on PERP distribution.
The same as Proposal A, except we only compensate the users who bothered to sign the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet has been unlocked and available to sign for over a week now.