Thank you @Tritium for putting this discussion up and taking the lead here, and ofc @gosuto for the thoughtful work putting this together.
I guess the other, more obvious answer to the poll would be 0%. This would most likely come from a pov where we shift the risk to the user. Anyone agreeing to Balancer’s terms of use would waive all claims to damage and loss, when acknowledging contract risk. This statement would then support a vision for Balancer as a trustless and decentralized public good. Zero restitution also means veBAL cares for our community owned Treasury stack, resources that are built collectively, and that risk-takers shouldn’t have a safety net at the costs of the more risk-adverse.
100% is good PR. Imo, this is what this proposition would be all about, relationship with partners, public perception, branding, etc.
75% is a good precedent and, in this case, a good compromise. It must be said that the DNS hack victims (under BIP-443, an entirely different and unrelated event/scenario) chose to take the 25% cut voluntarily when it was offered, to acknowledge their own responsibility by clicking weird links and signing transactions. Here, the cut would refer to at least some joint responsibility for qualified DeFi users such as ours to be vigilant of their holdings and take part of the contract risk they signed off. I think it’s pretty fair and reaches some middle-ground consensus.