# Proposal to freeze vesting for compromised address

**URL:** <https://research.lido.fi/t/proposal-to-freeze-vesting-for-compromised-address/1864>\
**Category:** Proposals\
**Created:** [March 22, 2022, 9:05am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/proposal-to-freeze-vesting-for-compromised-address/1864 "2022-03-22T09:05:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![vsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b19c9b/32.png) [@vsh](https://research.lido.fi/u/vsh)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2022, 9:54am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/proposal-to-freeze-vesting-for-compromised-address/1864/5 "2022-03-22T09:54:54Z")

</div>

We imagine we have three options to shape a vote:

1. Burn most of unvested LDOs on 0x48acf41d10a063f9a6b718b9aad2e2ff5b319ca2 and mint the exact same amount on address 0x… with the same vesting parameters as the original one.
2. Burn most of unvested LDOs on 0x48acf41d10a063f9a6b718b9aad2e2ff5b319ca2 and do not mint, with implication that minting would be done not in a hurry with a good due process.
3. Burn most of unvested LDOs on 0x48acf41d10a063f9a6b718b9aad2e2ff5b319ca2 and mint at address 0x… with vesting set to a year’s lock, with implication that changing the vesting terms to original ones would be done not in a hurry with a good due process.

How do you think the vote should be shaped? Time’s of the essence so we’ll go with rough consensus here.

---

_[View the full topic](https://research.lido.fi/t/proposal-to-freeze-vesting-for-compromised-address/1864)._