The proposed options below offer distinct pathways for victims to recover their funds, tailored to different levels of trust, risk appetite, and participation in the protocol’s recovery. Each option focuses on specific benefits and trade-offs, helping victims decide based on their priorities.
This community survey aims to gauge the level of support for each of the 3 options Feedback 101 laid out to inform the official remediation proposal whether to include some or all of them as fair options to be made available to the hack victims.
These recovery options assume other recapitalization efforts such as lost fund recovery and bailout funds are unavailable. Still, if they are, the options were designed to absorb those funds and quicken recovery.
Making the Right Choice
Please select a single option you’d prefer for your recovery! Poll lasts 14 calendar days and ends January 10, 2025 12:00:00 UTC.
(1) Option A only (Long-Term In-kind Payout: Select to target the potential full recovery of your assets in-kind)
(2) Option B only (Faster Liquidity with Discounted Payout: Select to cash out quickly in USDT, accepting a lower overall recovery with a 20-60% haircut)
(3) Option C only (Rebuilding with RDNT for Higher Returns: Select if you’re confident in the protocol’s future and want to benefit from incentives while helping rebuild)
(4) Options A & B (A portion of your claim as full in-kind recovery, and the remaining part as USDT recovery with a 20-60% reduction)
(5) Options A & C (A portion of your claim as full in-kind recovery, and the remaining part as locked RDNT recovery with additional incentives)
(6) All 3 options
0voters
Each choice is designed to balance victim priorities with the protocol’s recovery goals, ensuring fairness and sustainability. Dive into the details of the proposals below and engage with the Radiant Capital community for more insights.
Option A: In-Kind Asset Reimbursement (Default)
Concept: Victims are reimbursed with assets similar to their original deposits over time, as the protocol rebuilds.
How It Works:
Gradual repayment through protocol revenue or newly generated assets.
Victims maintain claims proportional to their pre-hack deposits.
No additional effort or participation is required from victims.
Best For: Those who prefer to “stay the course” and recover the most value of in-kind assets as the protocol stabilizes and grows.
Value Proposition:
Maximizes reimbursement in the long run.
Requires minimal involvement or risk from victims.
Drawback: Recovery speed depends on the protocol’s future success
Option B: Prioritized Hack-date Dollarized & Discounted Early Exit
Concept: Victims can opt for a prioritized, discounted reimbursement in dollarized value, enabling them to cut ties with the protocol, in a sense.
How It Works:
A portion of or all of the hack-date-price deposits is dollarized (converted into stable value) and paid out upfront.
Early withdrawal penalties or reduced payouts apply to ensure fairness to long-term participants.
The discount rate is dynamically calculated based on the level of participation. Furthermore, stablecoin deposits will have an additional 20% discount added to be fair to those with other crypto asset deposits which already come with an anticipated opportunity cost by dollarizing using prices before this run up. Best For: Those who prefer to “exit early” with faster, albeit discounted recovery.
Value Proposition: Quicker access to funds without depending on full protocol recovery.
Drawback: Victims recover less overall than staying long-term.
Concept: Victims actively contribute to the protocol’s recovery by locking their RDNT-denominated claims in exchange for receiving an allocation of protocol fees as incentives.
How It Works:
Depositors lock some or all of their claims, denominated in RDNT at hack-date-price, to receive 5% of total protocol fees (33% of the current OpEx allocation) every 6 months and an eventual buyout of all remaining balances by Radiant once all other claims in option A and B are paid out. (Contingent on a new DAO vote.)
Encourages community participation in rebuilding the protocol.
Best For: Those willing to take an active role in rebuilding and who want to maximize returns through incentives.
Value Proposition:
Accelerates protocol recovery.
Rewards participants with additional value over time.
Drawback: Requires trust in the protocol and a willingness to delay full recovery.
Why am I, the victim, is supposed to pay the price by either giving up my funds or waiting for god knows how much time?
You need to reimburse the funds, right away, without measures, in full.
Or, you need to pay interest, like every entity on this earth does for debts…
You are no different. You will need to pay interest if you want to pay back in long terms.
You can’t ‘haircut’ my funds, just because I believed in you.
There are no insurance or remediation funds available to reimburse at the moment. If the lost fund recovery or bailout efforts see some success, that would help speed up recovery. If not, the protocol needs to recover full functionality with improved flywheel economics to drive more TVL and fees for Radiant’s recapitalization, growth, and victim remediation.
I agree with you. Radiant’s move is destroying trust in the entire DeFi ecosystem. They themselves know that it is impossible to recover the funds lost from North Korean hackers, and law enforcement cannot help them recover them. The Binance and Arbitrum blockchain platforms certainly did not agree to freeze those funds because it would damage the credibility of their own blockchain. But the Radiant team, knowing these obstacles, has been making false promises to try to recover them for a long time, and now that they know that users are fed up, they have made these unfair offers and the user is forced to accept an option. So far, no one has even trusted them to cover the costs of damages for users because trust in the future of this platform has also been lost. I trusted this platform, thinking that it would comply with US laws, and I invested my life’s effort in it, but now I understand that I was wrong. A team is taking millions of dollars of people’s assets without any backing or insurance, and no law will deal with it for the loss of it, no one will cover the damages, and no one will accept fair responsibility for it. I wish at least the assets of people like me, which were less than $3,000, would be paid out quickly and without deductions, because we ordinary and poorer people have less ability to withstand the pressure of losing our capital in life, and on the other hand, paying it out would not put much pressure on the Radiant team. In any case, I am very upset and disappointed at the same time.
Im good with option “A” I was going to hold my $ARB anyways but is feel better in my vested arb was accruing some kind of reward. either way all options are better than total loss. Also just because I want a long term vest doesnt mean others will. I think all options should be availble on the claim page.
Ty Radiant for putting your best foot forward to rectify this situation.
The DAO is working on finding a solution and is doing its best to involve the whole community.
Every option comes with development costs. If you think an option should be included but not many people are likely to use it, it could end up being a waste of resources. So, it’s all about balancing what the community wants with what the DAO can realistically deliver.
Based on the above results it’s clear the most popular option is the long-term in-kind recovery claim contracts.
Honestly, I don’t like the option B at all if option A exists.
If there’s a bailout, not in full, why should would it give priviledge to ones that choose option B? If I knew I get my principal back “a day” after vote conclusion with 20% haircut I’d take it.
We’re not informed (yet assured no talks are held with potencial bailout provides) that a bailout will happen.
There is a clear astmethry of information between regular members and DAO.
Will the DAO membaers (main stakeholders in the protocol) choices of options of reimburcement option discoled at all? IT SHOULD BE!!!
As a regular user I can’t be sure that soon after the vote, a ‘sponsor’ won’t bail out option B pickers and protocol will cease to exist. How can I make an optimal choice?
For me option A is most logical, since most of depo I held on Radiant was in BTC whuch is was higher than the moment of hack and a bluechip in general, but if it was stables a haircut would be a valid option. However choosing option A and being left behind and blind until year 2 is a freaking joke.
Concluding, the choices of an reimbursement option of the BIGGEST AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS in the protocol should be PUBLIC for the sake of transparency
Or remove option B AT ALL!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, those are great questions, and I really appreciate you taking the time to write them out!
As you have probably noticed, the DAO is really focused on finally becoming more community-driven. That’s why all these options were laid out for everyone to consider and decide on together.
There are unknowns with every option, and you’re absolutely right that Option B comes with the most uncertainties. Especially, if deployed with the other Options.
I think the primary stakeholders here aren’t the DAO members themselves but the largest RDNT holders (not the same!).
I wouldn’t say there is a major asymmetry between the DAO and the broader community as all updates are published immediately, this is very important to me. There aren’t any closed-door discussions happening right now, especially as Radiant’s priority is to strengthen its position to negotiate. This includes bringing all markets back online, showing consistent TVL growth, and fully implementing the recovery plan with live claim contracts.
It’s tough to predict exactly when a payout would happen in a scenario where there’s a haircut. Would it be day 1? A year later? That part is uncertain. The DAO members/contributors don’t know more than you do about this.
If a sponsor stepped in, it wouldn’t be to prop up the protocol and let it fizzle out. The whole point of what the DAO is doing now is to restore Radiant and prove that it has staying power in the long run.
Radiant should negotiate from a position of strength to achieve the maximum possible recovery.
Yeah, Option A is the most logical and also the most popular. Based on the numbers I would assume Option A will proceed. The DAO is still waiting on feedback on Option B and C and then we will decide as a community.
I’m supporting Option C (Options A & C together also OK) as I don’t carry any assumptions that I will get the funds back. Its very clear to me what happened with the exploit, and those tokens are gone. I appreciate that Radiant DAO is taking the steps that it is to find a way forward with remediation and the rebuilding of the TVL/use of the protocol. I don’t consider the ARB I lost “mine” any longer, so I’d much rather support that long-term goal and gain the interest.
Really, I’m cautiously optimistic! I tend towards idealism, so I’m trying to temper that with the reality of unknowns. I think the important thing here is acknowledging that Radiant is trying to find a sustainable solution to moving forward. I wouldn’t want to take a haircut, nor would I want to further kneecap Radiant as it tries to rebuild. The exploit was super advanced, and an eye-opener for anyone else who manages multisig treasuries.
Totally agree , we as a users . We trust them just because it got invested from Binance Lads and a launchpool binance project , then they got hacked again . Instead got insurrance fund like aave , they got nothing. Then we have to wait years and years to get money back, only god knows when we got money back the market was in winter or not others while we have to lost 20- 60% lost for what ?? For using radiant , for trusting the protocol . This is how they treated their users . WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK , WE WANT IT NOW, FULLY RETURN. God , the launchpool projects in binance nowadays getting worst since CZ left
It appears that Option A is the most popular proposal. With the Bull market in full swing, it will become harder to return stolen assets “in-like” unless you invest in these assets now as the protocol earns $ for this purpose. You will need to identify all stolen assets in what proportion to their relative total value. The purchases should follow this distribution. Modify as price action changes the percentages.
This can all happen within a reserve acct that is ear-marked for this purpose. The reserve can also contain a managed portfolio of risk assets to make up the ground even faster. IE if you hit a 50X on 1M invested you nearly solve your problem, but risk potential loss. This is crypto and, although my example is extreme, some portion of the reserve assets can be denominated in risk assets.
Really, I’m cautiously optimistic! I tend towards idealism, so I’m trying to temper that with the reality of unknowns. I think the important thing here is acknowledging that Radiant is trying to find a sustainable solution to moving forward. I wouldn’t want to take a haircut, nor would I want to further kneecap Radiant as it tries to rebuild. The exploit was super advanced, and an eye-opener for anyone else who manages multisig treasuries.