As noted, none of what you assert above was on the actual UI where the interaction occurs. That is the point of contention. It may be written elsewhere, but IMO the original UI falls well short - which is why a middle ground is proposed as option 2, rather than something that absolves users of all risk.
You just asked me to share the before and after screenshots which I grabbed from what you shared on discord.
How do you now say that none of it was on the UI?! That notice I just referenced is from the original UI that you yourself shared on discord as such.
I donât think youâre getting my pointâŚ
The part that you assert, but wasnât on the UI, is the âwell established pre-requisiteâ part.
The screenshots are there for all to see, so Iâm not sure what the value in going round in circles over them is. Thanks for your feedback.
Fyi, I consider myself a seasoned defi investor and I didnât ape into this looping function, but I did looping in other protocol, and I know how it works. so I am trying to be neutral in this discussion.
Well, if you are seasoned defi investor, you should already dyor about this looping since the warning note is bright and clear. If you ape into it, and you lose it, well, something you have to shoulder.
Second, the warning note is indeed confusing, and the team knew it and changed it according. But it doesnât mean the team did wrong. The v2 mechanic had been communicated multiple times. So an UI which allow looping without that dLP prerequisite is meaningless.
All in all, I think it doesnât really warrant DAO repayment. A lot of communication have been done and if you missed it, well, you have to stomach it, just like any other investments we all had in crypto.
Thanks for the feedback.
Glad we agree on the facts of the original UI being confusing, and agree that it should have been and was changed. Not sure how you go from the warning note being bright and clear to then agreeing that itâs confusing, but I digress.
Disappointed that we disagree on the rest, but accept your position. My hope is still that the middle ground option prevails.
Any footnote with a notice is a warning, and it is clear that there is a âcatchâ for the looping function, unlike looping in other protocol. If you missed that âcatchâ, then you are a just too blind to dyor and you can only have yourself to blame, I hardly see any middle ground
I donât think thatâs a reasonable take - if there is a âcatchâ, then it should have been communicated clearly. Further, there was no option to mitigate the impact with a slippage tolerance. Again, thought, thanks for the feedback.
This is perceived hostility, my only goal is see an objective, unbiased proposal.
Youâre right. You didnât say anything at all about the information being out there in plain sight in your proposal (re: the dozens of repeated comms over several months about dLP requirements), which is the problem.
The same accusation you are making against Radiant.
The persistent lack of negligence accountability is not boding well for your case.
Iâm not assuming users will read every piece of content put out by Radiant.
But as a Defi user that intends to use the new protocol, one should probably read something, anything- 1 thing about dLP?
How many eviction notices does a landlord need to give? 1.
How many did Radiant give on merc farming- 20? Over the course of 2-3 months?
If I go to a restaurant and donât notice the waiter place the bill on the table in plain sight, do I not have to pay?
What if I did notice the bill, but it was hard to read or understand? Should I not ask the waiter for clarification?
The notice was there in plain sight. It meant something. Even if unclear, maybe ask the waiter (in this case Radiant) to review the bill before paying.
âThe persistent lack of negligence accountability is not boding well for your case.â
Really unsure what you want me to say. Youâve brought up the issue of me not mentioning that it was mentioned elsewhere, Iâve agreed that it was. Whatâs the problem wrt this specific point at this stage? I understand that it was mentioned elsewhere. There is no persistent lack of negligence accountability.
âBut as a Defi user that intends to use the new protocol, one should probably read something, anything- 1 thing about dLP?â
My point is that the original UI did not mention that a dLP position was being created - just that ETH was being borrowed if you didnât have locked dLP. If it had said that this transaction will create dLP, as it now does, then I think it would be reasonable to assume.
âHow many did Radiant give on merc farming- 20? Over the course of 2-3 months?â
Sure, I get your point - but again youâre talking about prior notices not on the UI. I am not contesting that they were there. I am saying that in my opinion, they should have been present at the point of interaction.
âThe notice was there in plain sight. It meant something.â
Yes, the notice that mentioned it would borrow ETH, and not that it would create a dLP position, as it now does.
If your goal is to arrive at an objective, unbiased proposal, Iâd love to hear some suggested changes that I can incorporate into a revision. I think Iâve been open to this by taking on board what youâve said about the proposal needing to acknowledge that the information was elsewhere despite not being on the UI at point of interaction. Happy to consider any other changes you take issue with, but at this stage I donât think itâs fair to assume that thereâs not willingness to take feedback on board, and certainly think âThe persistent lack of negligence accountability is not boding well for your case.â is way off the mark.
1 Like
The only thing thatâs really out of left field in this saga is the 20% slippage (if indeed you instantly lost that much based on slippage),
thatâs the cost of going all in on a function that you are using for the first time, which has launched only minutes ago. If you are cowboy enough to venture 1 million USDT in a brand new v2 protocol, you should be solvent enough to stomach that risk,
anything that Radiant offers at this point would be an act of charity, which you probably donât need, but I understand unclear wording leading to a massive slippage is a low blow, so maybe they can offer you 10% of the loss in locked DLP⌠In such a scenario all the RDNT holders should also get an airdrop to be compensated though, as no one else should need to indirectly pay for your cavalier lending practices.
In any case, I hope youâll agree Radiant has proven to be one of the most robust protocols out there and an absolute gem for the Arbitrum ecosystem, so I hope this initial mishap doesnât discourage you (and probably overall you are up by a lot from your v1 farming anyways). Good Luck
Totally agree that the main focus is the slippage issue at this point. Iâve tried to reflect that in option 2, which retains the terms of the lock, so accepts that side of the responsibility (the actions taken by the transaction), but seeks a middle ground that compensates for the slippage incurred due to a lack of any price impact warning.
I have to disagree that âthatâs the costâ, when there was no option to set a slippage tolerance, nor information that a directional swap would occur on the UI. As far as the UI stated, there was no âapingâ going on, and net exposure would remain as whatever was being deposited. That is why I think that the middle ground is fair here, IMO.
Not sure this follows either, really, in my view. The UI was unclear, and option 2 leaves those affected with the risk of the lock that was taken, the exposure to RDNT as per terms of that lock, but makes up for the fact that there was no option to set any slippage parameters at all, nor indication that slippage/price impact was important. I think Radiant DAO should shoulder some portion of the responsibility here, as many close to the situation as well as at armsâ length have agreed that the UI was not clear enough. While Iâm happy to accept my part in it, and therefore be bound by the terms of the locking period, exposure to RDNT, etc., I do think that there is room for the DAO to take some of the responsibility for what was an uninformative UI at launch, which has since been made much clearer. Whether people agree or disagree with that point is up to them, but I donât think itâs totally incomprehensible to think this.
I think the situation has unfortunately been misrepresented by other posters on this point, which is what I was concerned by, but glad you have brought it up again so I can clarify. I farmed on v1 for less than 48hrs in total in the many months that it was live, so definitely am not some evil mercenary v1 farmer thatâs previously caused any detriment to Radiant or the RDNT token. Iâm not up millions from farming RDNT by any means. I think I made something like $1,000 farming previously? Would have to double check, but something in that range.
Thanks for the responses, and I feel like weâre much closer to something resembling middle ground by the end of our back-and-forth. 
1 Like