I’m rather against this proposal
I understand the urgency and speed, especially since everyone needs to understand the risks and weigh them against the proposal.
I would only support the initiative to spend funds gratuitously if these funds are not allocated directly from the Treasury, but, for example, by reducing operating expenses, salaries, or research budgets (that is, the funds already budgeted should be allocated for this purpose)
However, I have several questions about the logic of the decision:
-
About $3 million has already been spent on losses in a non-core experiment with vaults.
If a $50-100 million hole appears tomorrow, will it be proposed to cover it from the Treasury?
If not, where is the line drawn and how is it determined?
I would like to understand the scope of responsibility and the approach to such situations. -
Who is responsible for the vault’s risk management?
Significant funding was spent on research and development, but ultimately decisions were made that led to the accumulation of leverage in rsETH without proper assessment of the architectural risks.
This looks like a serious failure – it’s important to understand where responsibility lies and what conclusions have been drawn. -
2,500 ETH is only a small portion of the total deficit.
There’s a risk that these funds won’t be enough to salvage the situation, and ultimately, both these funds and additional losses on the vault could be lost. How can we be sure that the proposed contribution is necessary and sufficient?
I’d appreciate detailed and prompt responses – it’s important to understand not only the current decision, but also the overall logic behind risk and treasury management (especially with such an urgent vote).