# Recovery of Funds - RyanLion **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal Discussion\ **Tags:** abandoned, withdrawn\ **Created:** [October 18, 2024, 7:05am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/recovery-of-funds-ryanlion/3230 "2024-10-18T07:05:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 12
**Author:** ![RoboMcGobo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/robomcgobo/32/633_2.png) [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/RoboMcGobo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2024, 1:32pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/recovery-of-funds-ryanlion/3230/12 "2024-10-18T13:32:12Z")
This is truly a horrible situation and I’m really sorry that this happened to you. I also want to say that if the same thing had happened to me, I’d probably be in these forums doing exactly what you’re doing now. Many of us probably would, and I think that anyone who doesn’t support this should at least acknowledge that. That being said, there are no circumstances in which the Osmosis validators should make state changes to the chain to arbitrate offchain disputes like who is the owner of a particular set of funds. Are validators prepared to accept any civil / criminal liability on the DAO’s behalf in the event that the true ownership of these funds isn’t as it’s been described here? More importantly, to @Kych 's point, are the validators prepared to arbitrate every case of lost funds moving forward, and upgrade the chain to move private user funds around each time? I understand that in this singular case the affected user happens to be someone whose name is familiar on twitter, but as @0xPhilipp says quite well: > [@0xPhilipp](#): > > Getting funds back shouldn’t be a popularity contest To the point of precedent, Osmosis has already decided a similar issue, and many of the points made in that forum are relevant here. Dropping this here for reference: > [@Refund dYdX user funds lost from high price impact out of ProtoRev profits](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/refund-dydx-user-funds-lost-from-high-price-impact-out-of-protorev-profits/1088): > > Summary A user has lost $248,016.39 swapping $626,980.63 USDC.axl to USDC on Osmosis via the concentrated liquidity AMM pool 1223, due to insufficient liquidity in the pool. This swap was part of a migration from dYdX V3 on Ethereum to dYdX V4. The user was shown a route generated by Squid V1 which showed an expected exchange rate of 0.604 Ethereum USDC to dYdX USDC on the dYdX front end. The user did not notice this poor exchange rate before signing and submitting their transaction. The ProtoR… Ryan, I’m very sorry that this happened to you. As I said before, I’d probably make this same request if it was me. But in the interest of the chain as a whole, I’d hope the validators would have the foresight and prudence to vote no for any proposal I were to put up if that were to happen. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/recovery-of-funds-ryanlion/3230)._