I see you are making great points there, and understandable. I am aware of 1hive’s work and I liked to use honeyswap (which I am bit disappointed nowadays as I thought it would been a very-multichain dex by now), but also there is two sides of the coins to be more fair and I didn’t forget some of the negative talks that popped up in ‘hard times’ about ‘how good it would been if they would been picking matic instead of xdai’ Which is understandable as matic got a lot of attention, other chains and ecosystems did envy that growth rate.
I am not trying to bring Agave down as a cash-grab-dump fork nor 1hive’s work down as 1hive does some legit-well done projects, there is place for forks obviously and they are more than welcomed. But as you saw me writing it above: a brand like Aave, is simply bringing trust, volume. I didn’t say that it would be 100% secure and cannot be exploited, as that only the time can tell. But I believe, it is more secure as those who wrote the protocol are more aware of details (which still it doesn’t mean it can’t be exploit), as I see, it is more trusted, plus brings awareness-liquidity.
Out of forks 1hive did a truly nice job to fill the leaks-the lacks of protocols on the chain. I am a simple individual, who favours to use the first and ‘brand protocols’ which other people make forks of, based on my experiences from the past, like this exploit now with Agave for example. As I learned through the hard way, that forks usually-a lot more times- giving hard times to users by incidents which impacts user experience, usually by an exploit. Which just did happen now. (In this case understandable Gnosis has the place of it in the incident)
These experiences are painful but users can learn from them as it leaves a very valueable lesson which is hard task to digest, but also the basic old principle which aged thousands of years: ‘Never keep all your eggs in one basket’ would be a good guide in the future, not to risk it all at once. -If I take the “lost my life savings” part as a fact, with a hint of skepticism.
I believe this last part doesn’t fit properly on the forum, also what I wrote above is that I am supporting the idea of GnosisDAO partially helping recovering the stolen funds.
But I also find it interesting that there are lack of conversations on aiming to find out who got away with the funds, and there are way bigger exploits tracked back by professionals.
Or offer the exploiter 30% of the funds as a reward of showing the vulnerabilities. (most likely it’s late?)
Which GnosisDAO could pay as Gnosis chain had responsibility over it. (I believe partially)
Most likely-and obviously there are a lot of people talking with each other privately about what can-could be done by GnosisDAO.
But I find the lack of motives to tracking the exploiter also the lack of bounty offering kinda interesting but straight jumping to the recovering status.
But I am not sure what would be ideal in this case. Maybe recovery first, than paying professionals.
Did GnosisDAO even offer a percentage bounty for the vulnerability shown? If that’s the case, it’s my bad, didn’t see it yet.
The idea of recovering the funds is obviously something I would vote with yes, but percentages I would re-consider with additions.
The best of me says I should stay positive and let go about the idea of some leveraged this situation to their own benefits. Mentioning auction floor prices, buys, are usually have a bad reputation in DAOs due selfish motives.
Which I am sure in this case, is far away from that intention, and none leveraged it via planning it.
I am just throwing ideas in-out so together we could make sure the GnosisDAO’s treasury are not treated the way politicans usually treat our paid tax money but with more care!
