I request the Council to consider and approve a short-track method for individual funds withdrawal requests, so that people who had trusted their funds into the hands of UNO Re, do not get unnecesarily punished by deadlines in their private lives.
I am writing this request based on a suggestion from Sujith and because I have a due date coming up mid January, for which I will be needing some of the funds that I had stored inside the SSIP/SSRP pools (USDT/USDC). I’d like to reiterate that I do not intend to sell any UNO - and the fact that I need this cash now is because I had trusted UNO with my savings - savings that are going to be needed soon.
So there is a certain urgency for me and I can imagine that more people are in a similar situation.
I can undersrand that this urgency conflicts with the requirement for a thorough V2 development and auditing process (in order to reduce/offload some of the consecutive risk).
My proposal is a 3-step process that maximizes security while minimizing the development effort:
request for funds to be submitted in writing to the Council for approval by majority of vote;
a lightweight proof-of-ownership validation of the relevant contracts (method to be decided by UNO development team);
payout of the requested funds onto the existing address, possibly as manual action, from the reserve pools by the UNO development team.
Step 2/3 could be done manually or in the form of a Dasbboard (as per Sujith’s suggestion), however the focus should be on minimal development effort and a quick turnaround time.
I look forward to the replies/suggestions from the Council and the DAO community.
I’m Shivansh, a junior member of the Uno Re DAO, and I’m addressing the recent request for an expedited funds withdrawal process.
Firstly, I want to acknowledge the urgency and significance of this request. It’s clear that there are immediate financial needs within our community. However, it’s crucial to recall the DAO’s previous decision regarding the compensation plan. As you might remember, we collectively chose Option 3 in the RFC Recompensation Plan for SSIP and SSRP LPs, which didn’t cater to such withdrawal requests. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to our collective governance choices.
That said, I propose an alternate solution that respects our previous decisions while addressing the current need:
-Disclosure of Requirements: Please specify the exact amount of locked UNO/SSIP LP tokens you need liquidity against.
-Discount Offer: State the maximum discount you’re willing to offer another community member for this OTC (over-the-counter) trade.
-Community Participation Period: We’ll allow a 1-2 week window for interested community members to express their interest and propose their discount rates.
-Settlement Process: The transaction can be facilitated through verification of involved parties or an independent escrow, ensuring transparency and security. Once the necessary adjustments are recorded in our snapshot sheet, the escrow agent can release the funds.
This approach allows us to navigate this situation without diverting our development team from critical tasks. It’s a community-driven solution that respects our governance structure and the autonomy of our members.
While this is not an ideal scenario, it offers a pragmatic way to address urgent liquidity needs while upholding our principles as a DAO. It’s important that we, as responsible governors, own our decisions and navigate their consequences together.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts and suggestions on this proposed course of action.
I call bs.
You guys screwed up massively. My money was given to you in full trust. We are talking about a 100k++ ballpark figure. Of this, I need a part within a month’s time. I am playing along. But we need to cater for urgent situations. Don’t give me this “the DAO voted for this and that”.
If “the DAO” is unable to cater for individual urgent situations, that is a flaw of the underlying idea. You guys suggested a way forward and most of us were patient and accepted it. Now you are telling me indirectly that I should have done what, start campaigning for “the DAO” to implement a better solution?
Stop acting like this is a massively decentralized thing, that is a joke. It is not. You guys pull the strings, we play along, anticipating that at some point, the structure that you suggest, will deal with things like SEC requirements while still being able to move forward with the original product idea
This is falling apart for me. I consider pulling my investments out.
@Structurator@Shivansh1 I think my understanding is none of this is possible until the redeployment of v2 contracts after audit. I think your proposal makes sense @Structurator and honestly @Shivansh1 I think the point of the DAO is it goes through voting where the community use their veUNO governance tokens to pass or deny a proposal. So, in reality, I think the proposal written by @Structurator needs to be considered as is. It’s not unreasonable to ask the community for the payout. If I remember correctly, we voted for option 2 in the recomp plan. So, I suggest we look into @Structurator as is and find a way for emergency release of their tokens with a confirmation method in between such as including the Olympus council. In reality, it’s only 10 days to unlock so maybe reducing this to 3 days in emergency situations?
Excatly this is also my current understanding, that the DAO in its current form is fine for allowing the investors to have a say in important decisions -and of course it is an important decision to cater for individual needs.
But not to design a solution or even to be involved in a solution.
The team has already vowed to make us whole and it is based on that assumption that I merely requested an option for individual urgency to be considered in light of the events. This is in return for the trust that we have put in you by lending the project our money.
It seems totally fair that I would need to provide arguments for why the payout is urgent, and the other investors would then get a say in accepting or rejecting the request.
But to make us part of the problem of providing the liquidity is shifting the responsibility for what happened towards us, I consider this as very unfair because the DAO is not that deeply involved in anything yet and was certainly not involved in the security breach that allowed our funds to be stolen.
I agree with what you are saying and maybe @Shivansh1 can relook at your proposal. @Structurator is not a new investor and has trusted in your protocol which he still trusts but requires a part of the funds as an emergency. I think you need to take this conversation in private, have a chat and send a proposal for DAO voting. Given @Structurator is a loyal investor and member of UNO, as part of the community, there needs to be more consideration on what he has to propose. Given the alternative is he has to find someone to buy his tokens so there is no liquidity issue, maybe make it easier and send in voting who would like to buy his tokens in offering at market price.
… just to add, my initial request was not for selling my tokens but for a quicker access to part of the USDT/USDC/ETH required for reinstating the V2 pools. If that liquidity does not exist, that’s something that needs to be considered separately imho.
Coming from an investor point of view, I totally understand where @Structurator is coming from and the fact that there are urgency in funds due to any legit reasons. However, we would also need to see the bigger picture to this in terms of this request. If we allow an exception to all individual request, how will this impact the time cost, or audit mechanism etc? Today it might be @Structurator req for an urgent withdrawer, tomorrow it might be another person coming in asking for an emergency withdrawer, 5 days later another one. It might be stables or in $Uno tokens etc. So what do we do then? Given there was an exceptional given? Do we spend more time and resources on catering to every single investor’s urgency?
What @Shivansh1 suggested might probably make more sense to me (ie. open up an OTC deal with a discount one is willing to forgo, be it in stables or $UNO). This is a norm which is pretty common in fund raising or private deals. Meaning to say I have $5k invested or 100k $UNO that is currently being locked. I could offer it for to anyone who is willing to take my “place” by accepting $4.5k instead of the $5k, or $3.5k in exchange of the 100k $UNO tokens. Of course it is negotiable and final price will be based on the demand and supply.
With the OTC method, investors with urgency could get their funds (definitely at a lower price) while the buyer can take the risk on behalf. This process would then not affect the remaining majority of investors who voted for the option 2. It’s a DAO afterall.
To be honest, this exploit did not only affected us as investor, be it we invest 4 figure, 5 figure or even 6 figures. The team is also affected and they have even compensated us whole with a cut of their tokens. Let’s be fair and think from both sides and no just from our own point of view.
I consider ourselve very fortunate in a way that $UNO team, especially @jas and @sujith_sizon is so passionate and doesn’t give up easily despite this unfortunate event. Imagine if it wasn’t them, I can pretty say many of the founders would just wrap it up and shut down the entire project.
They could just walk away and say “Sorry everyone, we tried our best, due to the hack, we can no longer carry on.”. There wouldn’t be even a forum for anyone to demand or request anything for.
Last words, I am in favour to have a OTC section whereby people could open up and trade their locked tokens/fiat that was affected.
Love the way you put it together. @Structurator maybe put a proposal in the forum with the portion of $UNO you would like to sell and someone can pick it up OTC?
Dear forum members, I think it is important that I point out that I don’t want to sell one single UNO! We are talking about USDT,USDC, ETH, that was essentially lent out to the project for a short duration with a planned end date.
I think this should be made very clear! I have NEVER PROPOSED THAT PEOPLE GET THEIR UNO EARLIER
Secondly, since there has not been anyone else in the chat indicating their urgency, and since the team is already working on V2 in an advance stage, I honestly don’t buy the argument that there will be 5, 10, 20 people. It is the same “if one does it, then so many will”…
Thirdly, I proposed that the community decides on the inidividual case. So if people start appearing out of nowhere, and have not been active in the chat, have not been indicating their urgency, do not make a strong case; it is not going to be too difficult to just say no.
However, and I thank the Team, there has been already a very human response and I am sure we will work something out (I actually may be able to cope in a different manner).
But I think it is important that everybody understands that this request is not about being able to get any UNO out. I do not want to get one UNO out, I am a long term investor and I love this project.
