@Yudilevi What is your take on why the Foundation has

been so silent? @MB_Richardson stated on the call that he spoke with the Foundation about a bailout and they said no. But no further specifications or reasons were given.

And it's impossible to make the argument that funding the deficit of the protocol has at least something to do with the protocol development? That's the biggest issue with the proposals right now. The proposals are trying to maximize fees off the current trapped liquidity + potential scorned liquidity returning, but it doesn't aim to get any new liquidity because all the fees earned will go towards funding the deficit. Wouldn't you be promoting protocol development if you didn't have to utilize LP funds towards funding a deficit?

The foundation decides what to fund, not us. We need to do the best we can with what we have

appreciate your insights yudi.. If we as a community and the team have implemented the proposed solutions and the protocol starts to look healthy again. And there is still !real! financial need of the foundation, im quite sure they will start to step in, in whatever way possible.

It’s pretty obvious that’s a bailout and has nothing to do with protocol development, yeah. Protocol development means paying service providers. And I think it sets a dangerous precedence that now every hack or exploit in the space calls for a bailout. Crypto is risky, hacks, scams, exploits and design flaws are running rampant and this is part of the risk we take as users, same for all of us, I’m no exception here

Im thinking about maybe a bootstrapping of the dai bucket

That's not my point. My point is why not give the reasons for funding or not funding.

you're one of the good guys Yudi but you can't blame us for not trusting the foundation in a space that's built on the principals of 'dont trust, verify' and currently we can't verify anything because whoever controls foundation chooses exactly what gets funded and therefore direction of the protocol, and we have no idea what methodology or mandate they follow or even what kind of treasury they have to work with. The dao is not in control of its own destiny and I find that to be a big problem.

First of all, I’ll say it again - we’re in the same boat. Service providers get paid to do it 24/7 but we’re all community members. And I do think there’s a misconception here - IMO if the community decides to take the protocol in one direction vs another, the foundation will keep funding the project regardless of that direction (well, assuming it’s legal 😅)

What I get from this is that if we can "productize" a recovery plan (just don't call it a bailout) and it doesn't set any precedent/future expectation of a bailout then as long as it's good for the protocol and approved by dao then foundation will fund it if it has the financial means to do so.

Ha :) in general you’re right. But I assume the foundation has a yearly budget :) Anyway you know how I see these things, I don’t have expectations from other humans to take care of me 😅

@yudilevi the Foundation's vote of abstain was instrumental in passing quorum for Bancor 3, was it not?

Every time you tag someone who’s working 24/7 on recovering/rebuilding, you’re distracting us and causing further delays. I suggest you discuss it with people who care about dwelling on the past vs people who’re actually working on the future of the protocol

You're not answering the question. I take it by your failure to answer the question that the answer is a yes. No further questions

Yudi i would love to hear your opinion, on maybe capturing a bit of the LINK incentives to help reduce the deficit of the LINK pool. Would this technically be possible considering the flexible v3 design? Or wouldn't it be worth, because it's relatively time consuming?

In the case of voting, the foundation is just like the rest of us a participant in the DAO. Even if they were guilty of supporting a wrong decision, same could have been said of other DAO members. As long as they didn't use their Foundation role in lobbying for said decision I can't really see why they would be liable to reimbursing

You mean, by LINK staking strategies?

You can do that all you want, but no one is disputing the facts of what I'm saying.

I don’t see why not

I mean it's probably a bit of development effort and I'm not sure if its technically possible.. But on the other hand the LINK pool is the v3 pool with the biggest deficit. So it might be worth to reduce it a bit with native LINK incentives/rewards. Maybe even add an "Opt-in" function for people to decide if they want to be part of it. On top of this, it is positive for both communities (especially LINK affected LPs) and maybe Link foundation is open for an OTC agreement regarding the incentives.. All in all I think, it might be suitable for the mid to longterm vision, but of course the priorities right now are more important shortterm

I think we should definitely look at different staking strategies, and you’re probably right re priorities