A vote on whether the exploit compensation should come from the Founding Team wallet

Authors:

UMBMaxi (AndyX201)

Summary:

Due to the recent smart contract exploits, the team released a statement on how they would compensate Fortress and MahaDAO, by giving 12.5 million UMB as part of said compensation deal. This will be taken from the Partner Fund wallet.

Abstract:

Due to the fact the exploit was due to bad coding practices or to be more plain, no code review process was used to pick up these errors in the smart contracts. Because of this negligence the compensation should be taken from the Founding Team wallet.

Motivation:

A nice fair outcome that punishes the team to make sure that no future exploits will happen in the future.

Rationale:

Preventive mechanism to stop bad code.

Budget / Resource Requirement:

No budget required barring the time to transfer the tokens.

  • Compensation payment should be taken from the Founding Team wallet.
  • Compensation payment should be taken from the Partner Fund wallet.

0 voters

I looked further at the distribution schedule … it looks like the same amount of tokens are being distributed into the Founding Team wallet as the Partner Fund wallet.

I think the only thing worse than funding it from the Partner Fund is taking it from the Founding Team fund, simply because we need the team to still be incented to do their best work. That incentive can be in doing their absolute best on the product to help bring the price up over time.

The Partners will not be incented in the future by UMB tokens if the products are not in the best possible shape; I would worry more about retention of the best Founding Team members if we punish them and remove all incentive for better product oversight.

Maybe the team should be penalised and a % taken from the Founding Team wallet. Also, those 12.5M tokens should not be allowed to go in the staking pools because that means retail will be punished for the teams mistake.

1 Like

I agree that no matter where the 12.5 million tokens come from, they shouldn’t go into the staking pools, as that just crushes the rest of us who have been long term hodlers.

Also, I’ve stated this before, but whenever this does come to a governance vote, we should set parameters for establishing a quorum. With 191 million UMB in circulation (not sure the exact number), we should have X% of those represented in a vote. I’ve been in another project where we needed a quorum of a minimum of 5% of the total tokens represented to pass the results. I know that Snapshot has that feature, of being able to count whether a quorum has been reached. I don’t know what the proper quorum for this token should be, but I think we should have a discussion about it.

I’ve decided to step away from the Umbrella Network community and Telegram channels in general. I will keep my holdings because I will not sell at a loss. But I have no faith in the project now, or more specific the team. If UMB goes up then great and if it goes to 0 then it will be a tax loss. There’s much better projects that I want to invest in.

If anyone wants to take this governance thread over, then you are welcome.