This isn’t reassuring. If I understand you correctly, it has to be a major hack before anything is done, but there’s no clear definition of that. That’s the problem. You’re talking about 150 million, and if I’m not mistaken, that’s the impact on all the channels, not just Gnosis (forgive me if I don’t have a clear grasp of the figures; I haven’t followed the hack closely, but the issue of the fork is important).
Okay, so what constitutes a major hack? 150 million? 149 million and we do nothing? Or is 100 million the limit?
But if it’s 100 million, then why not 99 or 95 million?
We could go on like this for a long time. At what point are we going to say the hack, and therefore the people affected, become insignificant to the DAO (or the group of people who control the DAO)?
Are there other criteria, such as the people impacted, or the protocol itself being hacked?
If it’s a protocol that interests you, will you perform a hard fork, but not for another protocol?
For example, if RealT gets hacked, will you also seek to recover the funds since it represents nearly half of the TVL and the protocol that pays the most fees to the channel, or will you refuse the hard fork because RealT isn’t supported by the channel? To avoid focusing solely on RealT, for whom I work, we can ask the same question for others like Sushi, and other smaller protocols.
The problem is that to accept a hard fork, as I said in the other thread, you need a strict framework that no one can deviate from, a framework applied by the DAO for the DAO itself, not for the needs of a group of people. This is the risk with uncontrolled processes that aren’t discussed at a broad scale.
Out of all the users on the chain, how many are even aware of what you’re going to do?
How many people participated?
Is this truly representative?
Are the people who delegated their GNO for staking actually aligned with this?