Hello, thank you for this post. I have concerns that don’t seem to be addressed, and I’m not the only one; we already discussed this topic here: Balancer hack: Update - #7 by PeterTheOne
The main concern is the unequal treatment in past cases where such a process could have been applied compared to future cases.
Before we can move forward with the hard fork, it’s vital to define the process surrounding it so that all similar cases can be handled, and not just those that benefit one party or another.
The problem is, are we going to perform a hard fork for every wallet hack or anything else? Won’t this lower the quality of applications, which will assume that a hard fork is possible in case of a hack? Could a malicious state exert pressure to cancel transactions or seize funds?
This hard fork procedure represents a major shift in the philosophy of immutability, and I’m concerned about the potential pitfalls.
Validators are key players whose role is to enforce a set of rules and preserve the chain’s integrity. Accepting the hard fork could set a dangerous precedent, opening a Pandora’s box and bringing the Gnosis Chain closer to traditional finance.
I’m not saying we should reject it, but as described in previous discussions, we need clear and fair rules. Anyone or any protocol that needs it and meets the rules must be able to trigger the process, not just a select few. Therefore, in my opinion, we must first validate this process before approving a hard fork.