I can't stand to not speak up about this @feiprotocol situation. Please read this 🧵 for one of the most egregious "DAO/DeFi" situations I've ever seen. There's CeFi drama stuff, but this is a new low for DeFi.
Some background on what's going on: In late 2021 Fei Protocol (the stablecoin) did a merger with Rari Capital DAO (developers of the Fuse money market). The merger passed overwhelmingly & $RGT tokens became $TRIBE tokens effectively sealing the deal. tally.xyz/governance/eip…
In late April 2022, the Fei-Fuse money market was drained due to a reentrancy bug. Many early adapters of Fuse lost millions. @fraxfinance a huge FEI/Fuse backer+lender+user lost ~$13m. @OlympusDAO lost ~$9m. The total hack resulted in nearly $80m lost.
The FEI/TRIBE DAO had 100s of millions USD in excess PCV at this time & held a governance vote where TRIBE holders voted overwhelmingly to reimburse all victims of the hack. They were applauded for this exemplary & ethical move. I sang their graces. snapshot.org/#/fei.eth/prop…
Then weeks went by...🦗..no repayment. Then in May/June 2022, the crypto markets took their infamous downturn. Then FEI emerges with an insane proposal: "Let's do the repayment vote over again, the last one didn't count." The egregiousness of this is wild & absolutely ridiculous.
Of course, as you might expect, to no one's surprise the vote does not pass this time...the repayment of victims is off the table now.
@cobie had a good thread explaining it below. The gist of it is clear: FEI didn't want to repay victims because their stablecoin peg & treasury value was dangerously low. While passions were high, their supporters (including us at FRAX) were patient.
I even personally posted in the thread where they renegged on repayment, and I promised that any repayment to FRAX would permanently go to providing FEI-FRAX liquidity to bolster their peg. They'd be repaying FRAX AND STRENGTHENING THEIR PEG. Silence. Not even 1 reply.
I tried multiple times to reach out to @joey__santoro since June. No response. FRAX was on of their earliest supporters. I've met them all in real life. Nothing now. Not even a post mortem discussion/call with us after renegging on governance vote+repayment to all victims.
To his credit @JackLongarzo did speak to me in detail but when I asked for a meeting to discuss with him+Joey...silence...
Then today...the FEI team comes out that they're winding everything down. So what about the repayment of victims now that there's an orderly shutdown?
FEI has more than enough PCV to redeem every stablecoin at peg, repay every cent to victims, & STILL have ~$65m in value for $TRIBE holders to redeem & profit. But what are they doing instead? Giving FRAX, Olympus etc cents on the dollar leaving victims with 95% hack losses.
Take a look at this, curtesy of @dcfgod. If FEI repaid every hack victim, redeemed all FEI at peg, then distributed the remaining treasury pro rata to TRIBE holders, TRIBE would be worth $.16 with 10s of millions USD value given back to holders. A graceful & perfect sunsetting.
Instead of the above, they're planning to do this 👇 They're preposing repaying FRAX 2% of $12.3m lost. 3% of @OlympusDAO's $8.9m lost. And just 19% & 27% of @BalancerLabs@VesperFi losses respectively etc. Why? How does this make any sense other than fraud?
An honorable, ethical, & respectable shutdown of a DAO is literally perfectly here. The money is there. The full repayment, the perfect peg redemption, & moral precedent is possible. I truly don't understand how it's possible to look at this, then decide "Na let's take the rest."
This post in the Tribe forums resonates greatly. It straight up calls them out for simply wanting to keep more money for themselves at the expense of their early backers+friends solely because they probably think they can get away with it (they won't).
This is truly one of the most mind boggling situations I've seen. Outright fraud, blackhat hacks, scams/rugs are obvious. Difficult situations are also obviously difficult. This....I don't understand what this is other than WTF. This is a public VC backed, tier 1 project..
Their investors include @hiFramework@a16z@nascentxyz among others. I've personally done nothing but try in good faith for many months to resolve this and in the end this is what FRAX gets for being one of their earliest backers and supporters. No good deed goes unpunished.
Is it really worth the FEI/Rari team doing this to their bright careers in crypto for a couple million more dollars? There's still time to take feedback & fix mistakes so everyone can move on in peace & give respect+credit to FEI/Rari for doing the right thing in the very end.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ With RWAs & regulated stablecoins one of the fastest growing sectors in crypto, does it actually matter if a stablecoin/RWA is issued or settled on Ethereum? I don't think it does once the asset is issued natively anywhere else but on ETH L1. Let me explain why
🧵
2/ Let's take Blackrock's $BUIDL tokenized by @Securitize as an example. BUIDL is issued on Ethereum, Arbitrum, & most recently Solana. That's good for Blackrock but potentially zero sum for Ethereum's "institutional issuance L1" vision.
3/ "ETH settlement guarantees" make sense for assets that don't have issuers. If they have issuers like RWAs, the settlement guarantee of an asset is dependent on the issuer honoring all its liabilities on every chain it issues. $BUIDL on ETH is a subset of Blackrock liabilities.
1/ I'm going to propose a completely new system for valuing digital commodities like L1 tokens/sovereign commodities vs gov/equity tokens.
This is very important for $ETH & the various L2 tokens/chains. It could remove the cloud over the $ETH asset once and for all.
🧵
2/ There's only really two types of tokens in crypto, digital commodities (typically L1 sovereign assets) & equity-like gov tokens. I explain it deeper in my previous p1 thread:
3/ A commodity cannot pay a 'dividend' or have 'cash flow' by definition, we must do away with this erroneous metric if & only if the asset is truly a digital commodity and not a gov/equity-like dapp token.
1/ Lot of talk about how to value different assets in crypto, especially given the recent AI/memecoin craze lately, but I want to explain the proper way to value the most important large crypto assets: L1 tokens vs 'type 2' aka dapp/L2/'equity' tokens.
🧵
2/ L1 tokens have a mystical 'L1 premium' that no one's systemically explained. Many people think it's a speculative ponzi, but it's just the opposite. L1 premiums are more fundamental most realize.
3/ L1 assets (ETH, SOL, NEAR, TRX etc) are the 'sovereign scarce asset' of a chain's economy. They become the most liquid asset in that economy. Other projects accrue it, build primitives/DeFi with it, & incentivize liquidity against it making it a safe haven asset in crises.
It's important we don't lose site of what Judge Torres' Ripple ruling means (and what it doesn't mean). I'm going to try to cut through the noise and keep things concise.
My main conclusion is that this is a political battle and after the first inning, crypto is winning. 🧵
Without any doubt, most importantly, the case struck down the "embodiment doctrine" that has pervaded mainstream legal discourse until this ruling. It's great to finally break free from this psyop.
Embodiment doctrine states that tokens most likely "embody" the contract (carry the spirit of the original fundraising event+promotions+scheme+circumstances) with them into existence & thus every future sale, trade, secondary tx, speculation, etc is a security tx under Howey.
Alright it's time for the FRAX UST 4Pool thread you've all been waiting for!
🧵
So how did this big move come about?
Most people don't understand Curve. They think it's a DEX with less cap efficiency than Uni v3. Wrong. Curve is the "fiat savings account" of DeFi. Forget all the middle iq takes "cUrVE fEeZ r Lez tHan CRV inFlayShon. CRV iz ponZu"
Don't believe me? It's literally the 2nd sentence of the Curve whitepaper SINCE 2019! The gigabrains at @CurveFinance planned this all along. That has been the ultimate master plan, although I doubt even they thought it would be THIS successful as a high yield, low risk account.