karpatkey welcomes the discussion and all the points of view presented so far. This is our understanding of the matter:
As the hack affected Balancer’s smart contracts, compensation should be 100% if that does not jeopardize the protocol’s operation (which is not the case). This reasoning is based on two points:
- The majority of the funds were in a stable pool (bb-a-usd pool), whose LPs generally do not actively manage their positions;
- The time between announcing the potential issue (the call for exiting the position) and the effective hack was short.
The DAO should send a message acknowledging that these losses happened because of an issue with Balancer protocol, and, as we (as the Balancer DAO) are always attentive to situations like this, we are proposing total compensation while doubling down our efforts to prevent these incidents from happening again.