This proposal sounds great,i hope this is what happens
my issue is the voting part
victims compensation should not be subjected to other parties voting faith as acala user do not hold $Lay
please just do right by victims
bring more attraction to starlay_fi and build trust back from the community
get official audit using A.I technology
it will be a win/win situation instead of a dissolution just learn from the mistake that occured
I canât agree with compensating through a debt token, especially since Starlayâs current revenue is zero. All fees are returned to veLAY holders, and the entire treasury comes from Astarâs dApp staking. Developing a debt token would also take time. Who will develop it, and at what cost? Currently, no one is being compensated for this fee.
Please consider this option too, DEBT coin can be a part of Starlay 2.0. The Starlay team can expand given that 50% of the treasure is retained and develop 1:1 DEBT:DOT coin protocol. Use 50 % of Dapp staking reward for DOT buyback and issue it to the DEBT coin holders. Burn the DEBT coins once DOT is issued. In the meantime provide $LAY rewards for DEBT coin staking. This mechanism replicates the DEBT coin holders as investors in Starlay.
If the community votes on retaining half treasure, I assume only 1/4 of the lost fund will be compensated. The remaining compensation if planned to be issued via $LAY token can you give an estimate of how to compare the $LAY: DOT.
Please let me know if the below consideration about $LAY is correct,
Total max Supply: 1,000,000,000
Initial Release date: 28th Feb 2022
Token Released as of 28th Feb 2024: 803,300,000 (80.33%)
Remaining Token to be released: 70,300,000.
Based on the Token distribution graph shown in Starlay Token circulation document, from which pool will be the compensation $LAY token be drawn from.
As a principle, dApp staking rewards are meant to be used within the Astar ecosystem. Similarly, the ASTR allocated for compensation in this case should ideally be used for the growth of the protocol, and not primarily for compensation purposes. For a detailed discussion and context, itâs advisable to refer to the official Astar forums or documentation.
Please refer to the proposal. Itâs not $LAY token but new token.
Introduction of New Tokens and Evolution Strategy: The emphasis shifts towards a broader strategy of protocol evolution and community support. The potential for future token issuance, aligned with the rebranding initiative, will be explored in close collaboration with the community. It is crucial that any decision regarding token issuance and the specific mechanics of compensation be ratified through community voting, ensuring alignment with the collective vision and interests of the Starlay stakeholders, however there is high possibility that the users suffered from this time incident would be allocated the new token
I do not believe it is necessary to provide 100% compensation to users who suffered financial losses on Starlay on Acala.
This is because investing assets comes with its risks and returns, and I think it is wrong for the protocol to take on all those risks.
On the other hand, option 4, which involves no compensation at all, seems far too irresponsible.
If option 4 is chosen, I am considering leaving the Starlay community.
Hello Seiya, thanks for the response. Isnât it fair to say ideally the users are not expecting the protocol to be hacked either? Like how half the current treasury (which only contains ASTAR tokens form Dapp staking rewards) are used for initial compensation, why canât Starlay going forward use 50% of their Dapp staking rewards to gradually payback the remaining compensation. And once everyone is compensated, Starlay can revert to collecting 100% of the Dapp reward for the growth of the protocol. As seen from the $LAY coin distribution graph, there is also additional revenue for Community Growth total and Team total which adds up for protocol growth revenue I assume.
DEBT coin initiative should be not alone seen as compensation coin rather also been seen as users locking in their capital investing in the growth of Starla 2.0. Thank you
no no no option 4 should not be on the table at all it is so unfair not to compensate due to a mistake on the projects fault it is crazy for you to even draw up something like that but you know what the the faith of others financial livelihood lie within yall hand and the voters and i already feel like we will not be compensated
Using resources that are not ideally meant for compensation, and then further proposing to use more of such resources, might not seem reasonable. Everyone agrees that no one wants the protocol to be hacked, hence the proposal for maximum possible compensation. However, overcompensating might hinder the growth of the protocol, which benefits no one. Proposals that could impede the protocolâs growth should not be accepted outright.
Also The graph you mentioned is related to LAY distribution and has no direct relation to revenue.
DEBT coin initiative should be not alone seen as compensation coin rather also been seen as users locking in their capital investing in the growth of Starla 2.0. Thank you
Iâm not quite sure how this DEBT coin seen as users locking in their capital investing in the growth of Starla 2.0. Rather It seems to me that we are reducing the resources to grow the protocol. Better to allocate new token allocation in the future then.
you think they really care if you leave the community
perhaps the vulnerability was on purpose
i was going through reddit and realizing this is not the first hiccup with the team
it seems like the hacker is waiting for something to move the $dot tokens
Please strive for constructive discussions. What youâve shared is simply an opinion. The forum is meant for engaging in constructive dialogue. Your comments are far away from constructive dialogue. Please check our Governance and Rule
Please strive for constructive discussions. What youâve shared is simply an opinion. The forum is meant for engaging in constructive dialogue. Your comments are far away from constructive dialogue. Please check our Governance and Rule. Iâll remove you if you keep breaking our rule.
Your statements lack substantiation. Please learn how to engage in constructive dialogue before participating in the forum. Additionally, consider revising your English for clarity.
I donât believe the Starlay team would ever intentionally incorporate vulnerabilities into their product.
I have been supporting them as a community member since the inception of the project.
They are not the kind of team that would engage in such actions.
Also Iâm quite confused, but how were the funds hacked? I thought I was staking my DOT through Euphrates on Starlay, not adding liquidity to some pool. Iâm not an expert, but as far as I understand staking and adding to liquidity pools are different things. What am I missing here?
Finally, who is legally response for this? Acala, Euphrates or Starlay?
