Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

I'm no whale. Not within my means at all

> only one person is able or willing to show up to bid Thats not an auction. It would never happen in any reality. You seem to have a terrible understanding of how it was supposed to work. Regardless its just the trust in maker you are arguing to lower. This week, there is a serious possibility of further eth price drop causing global settlement. Everyone loses then. Why could this happen? Because nowhere near the number of people are willing to create DAI via opening a CDP. And why should they? 6 keepers- supposedly allies of the maker ecosystem- stole 8 million in collateral with 0 recompense or recourse for those affected. CDP saver did not help any of the initial 0 bid victims because the ETh price dropped 170-130. That dropped them into the ratio where they can't free eth to repay anyways. Honestly do you even have a CDP or a stake in this? you sound like someone who is just happy these victims got theirs. I would warn anybody invested in maker from falling into the most base of emotions about this. This guy is arguing against a further 2-4% dillution of maker to compensate those affected, while leaving them out to dry endangers all trust in the maker system.

Respectfully I think this response is blending operational and leverage risk together. Impacted CDP holders absolutely have taken on leverage risk and should have no expectation that this portion of their losses is reimbursed. However I think the above does not address the existential threat posed for the long term adoption of the MKR ecosystem by blaming less sophisticated CDP holders for a foreseeable and unaddressed code exploit (operational risk). Where in the wider community would it be acceptable to argue that because the auction of my house occurred on an island and only one bidder had a boat that this is an acceptable process that I receive nothing from the sale of an asset where we have an easily understood way of determining a range of acceptable values? The rogue keeper knew that the ETH was worth considerably more then zero but still bid zero because the system failed and allowed them to do so. This is theft facilitated by code. The ‘because defi’ argument fails to address the fact that wider community expectations matter because the wider community is where your future adoption will come from. This is why ETH has continued to appreciate post the DAO hack and ETC has largely stalled. No CDP holder could rationally argue they are entitled to the portion of their CDP they had already drawn in DAI (leverage risk) when they were liquidated due to a rare (but not impossible) asset fluctuation. Absolutely I did not follow the great advice above and I was liquidated for a nominal amount on Thursday - too bad so sad my fault move on. What is clear however is that the system behaved in a way on Thursday that it wasn’t intended to (hence the speedy action of the community to ensure this doesn’t happen again) regardless of the more sophisticated amongst laying blame on the less sophisticated CDP holders. The MKR foundation and MKR holders therefore have a dilemma - if they act in a way that forces retail CDP holders to bear all of the impact from this system failure what is to assure the wider community this won’t just happen again? The wider community would rightfully question whether participating given this inequitable situation is actually worth it at all despite the wonderful potential of the MKR movement. If the impacted CDPs are not reimbursed for their loss due to the operational failure what possible incentive could other future early adopter CDP holders have to participate? What other exploits could exist not contemplated or clearly articulated by MKR to CDP holders? There is likely an information asymmetry here as MKR holders could be seen as less incentivised to articulate risks relating to CDPs since the more uncertainty CDP holders perceive the less likely they are to participate. Parties who are unable to ascertain the risk of the activity they are undertaking with the alternative of doing nothing will almost certainly take it. Less CDPs and/or much lower leverage -> less DAI liquidity -> slower or no adoption of DAI -> MKR loses value What is at stake here is the future viability of the MKR ecosystem. The MKR Community needs to reimburse CDP holders for the theft that has occurred here as well as demonstrating they learn from this in a way to avoid repetition. Anything less is to fail the wider community expectations and imperil future adoption of the MKR eco system. I love the promise of DEFI and MKR - I hope we make the right choices here to keep the dream alive.

No to CDP saver. A regret that will haunt me for some time to come Yes of course to trying to pay more. I watched it happen in front of my eyes whilst unable to do a rhjng. My main problem was multiple stuck transactions from uniswap blocking anything else. Etherscan also appeared to be down and my trust wallet was fluctuating between varying balances stopping me from reposting txs at same nonce to clear. I admit to being leveraged more than I should and for not anticipating such a huge crash/deleveraging sooner I do not agree that this is just FUD though. People need to read these comments without them being co completely dismissed as such. I now firmly believe the space is not ready for defi,as exciting as it still is. Congestion and price movement as it was shows that things get basically locked down quick and bad players get to rule the roost if only for a short time. Lastly, if all went as intended there wouldn't be the current motions by maker to plug the gap. The lack of keepers is a big risk factor and I believe zero$ liquidation risk could have been mitigated far sooner.