Balancer hack: hard fork

[filoozom]

@serenita_luca

Unless there is a good reason to perform this hard fork next week, why don’t we agree on that rule framework first, and only then do the hard fork? The only downside to it that I’m aware of is a delay in fund recovery which doesn’t seem like the end of the world given:

There is another critical downside: the soft fork is inherently fragile. Every day the hardfork is delayed, chances of recovering any funds diminish significantly, especially when new client versions are released, as people tend to update to those. If we delay this until after New Years, I give a non-insignificant chance of wasting all our efforts for the past 1.5 months and losing all the funds.

That being said: even if there was a framework in place, how would you force validators to follow its guidelines?

@serenita_luca

Re: unequal treatment / precedence / future situations

I agree with the general point which I’ve also seen in previous threads.

Could you point me to threads that point out unequal treatment? I only know of the Balancer oracle pool thing, but that is clearly very different from this situation. Am I missing something else?