I want to respond specifically to the repeated comparison between the sDAI–EURe pool incident and the Balancer hack, because I think this is where we are talking past each other.
First and foremost, I agree that we made a mistake in how the issue was communicated when it was first encountered. I was involved in and supported that decision at the time, and I’ve explained the reasoning before: this pool was a core piece of infrastructure and an enabler of Gnosis Pay. After years of work, it had finally reached meaningful liquidity, and the intention was to first fully understand and fix the issue before going public, with the goal of making LPs whole. With hindsight, that tradeoff was not handled well.
When you reached out to me privately, @NolanV, I explained this, and later also posted it on the forum. We disagreed on whether the fix sufficiently reduced LP risk, and we didn’t reach consensus, which is fine. It’s also worth noting that this was less than a week after we had asked Balancer to increase the pool fees, and the situation was still being actively monitored.
The subsequent delays in public communication were a process failure involving multiple parties. karpatkey had taken responsibility for communication and repeatedly postponed it. When it became clear this was not progressing, the issue was ultimately made public, and the DAO has since addressed the breakdown in that process.
There are many valid criticisms one can make about how this was handled. What I don’t see is how this supports the claim that the Balancer hard fork decision was driven by favoring certain LPs.
If the underlying suggestion is that we reacted differently in the Balancer case in order to favor LPs, that explanation does not hold. A substantial share of the Balancer exploit directly involved the sDAI–EURe pool, meaning there was significant overlap in the affected LPs. The same LPs are therefore being invoked to explain two opposite, incentive-driven behaviors. The difference in response cannot be explained by who the LPs were, but by the nature of the incidents and the response options that were actually available.