Title - [Incorrect transfers of EQ tokens from Equilibrium to Moonbeam]
Abstract - This is the second attempt for the proposal to return stuck EQ tokens for some Equilibrium users. Here’s the original proposal with all of the details
Details - Some Equilibrium users have incorrectly sent their EQ tokens to the NULL (0x) address in the Moonbeam network instead of using their own addresses directly and ended up temporarily losing their tokens. We would like to create a governance proposal in the Moonbeam network to transfer xcEQs from the NULL address via XCM directly to token senders via a batch of XCM transfers. The Call Data may be found here.
We ask Moonbeam’s community to reconsider the proposal, given last time it was rejected by the majority of voters. Eliminating the discrepancy is not an issue of the dollar value of erroneously transferred tokens, but rather the striving to return user funds in a proper manner and get rid of stuck tokens on the sovereign account of Moonbeam. Dear Moonbeam community, we’re looking forward to your help and cooperation!
hey, tbh, I have some doubts that the community’s opinion will change if you submit the same proposal as before. It might be necessary to provide a more detailed proposal and highlight the measures you have taken to prevent similar situations in the future. additionally, it is advisable to avoid making this a frequent practice or setting precedents to prevent a flood of similar proposals in the future
Backtracking tokens are supported. Now eq officially hopes to solve the problem for users, and the current fault problem is not a user operation error, but a fault problem that occurred during the process of building a cross-chain bridge. I hope Moonbeam can help EQ solve this fault problem. I believe that the EQ team had a failure experience once, and this kind of thing will not happen again. Thanks to the Moonbeam team for their help
Hey, Jack, not sure what exactly you mean by “I hope Moonbeam can help EQ solve this fault problem” as it all depends on the level of support the community provides through on-chain voting.
personally, I see a significant distinction between cases where an ordinary user makes a mistake resulting in their funds being stuck, potentially exceeding their ability to cover the loss, and situations where a project makes an error while configuring the XCM process. specifically, when an ordinary user encounters such an issue, the community is likely to be ready and willing to assist and support their proposal. however, in the case of a project error resulting in funds being stuck, amounting to approximately $245 (at the time of writing), it seems most optimal for the Equilibrium Foundation to assume responsibility and cover the losses incurred by the users from its treasury. as mentioned previously, my opinion is rooted in the goal of preventing this incident from establishing a lasting precedent and mitigating the likelihood of an influx of similar appeals in the future.
this is solely my opinion, and ultimately, the community will have to determine the resolution of this situation through on-chain voting
Hello, I am one of the user representatives who caused losses due to this failure. At that time, our tokens were sent to NULL (0x) empty addresses due to the failure. I don’t know what happened in the middle. We made sure when we carried out the cross-chain bridge The input is our own moonbeom address. As for why it is sent to the address 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000000, we don’t know what happened in the middle, and we have pre-crossed the small amount of tokens. The amount of tokens will be sent to the address 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000000. In addition, our transaction records are attached. The first transaction is that we pre-cross-chained a small amount of 1000 tokens and successfully arrived. The second large amount failed. Now the eq team wants to help us get back the tokens, so it launched a proposal to recover our losses. Thank you for watching Subscan | Aggregate Substrate ecological network high-precision Web3 explorer This link is 1000 cross-chain records Subscan | Aggregate Substrate ecological network high-precision Web3 explorer This link is the cross-chain record of 163005 coins
I am sorry for your loss @JACK Hui. If it is the protocols fault that tokens were sent to the wrong address then I believe that the protocol should be responsible for refunding you. If it is a bug in their code then it is something that they need to take responsibility for.
I do feel that it can set a bad example to go to the NULL/DEAD address to retrieve user funds.
I also feel for the user as I just had to help someone today who sent the wrong token to an exchange and the exchange was willing to refund it but with a fee. That is due to the extra work required from multisig and staff support work.
Might I suggest a change to your proposal @pstr1 Peter… EQ 100% refunds its users and submits transaction proof, and then ask that Moonbeam retrives the tokens for a 50% fee. Moonbeam then uses that fee to buy market GLMR and then burn (or distribute to all active wallets).
I am not saying that will fly, but I am saying that you take responsibility for your actions as a protocol.