Though this is unfortunate, I don’t think it should be refunded.
Sure, the UX was bad, the UI should have notified the user more explicitly etc etc, but code is law.
Accepting this proposal will create a precedent on refunding user’s mistakes. Moreover, where do we draw the line? Is it at 10k, 100k, 10M?
The user wanted to migrate on dxdy, let them handle the issue, not the osmosis community.
I’m voting no with veto.
Exactly this 
no with veto
That’s exactly what he said in his continued statement…
This is a systems error as much as it is a user error. In TradFi, the user would be reimbursed 100%. In DeFI, if you can reimburse the user minus 20% AND fix the systemic issues, everyone wins. But I would recommend the OSMO community sale the OMSO incrementally to protect price. Either pay the user back in USDC in one shot, or in payments spread out to reduce negative effect on OSMO price due to sale.
Longer term goals are use by the general public, yes? Then there need to be protections in place for the general user.
if code was law there would be no opportunity to put a prop like this up. We have seen btc miners and eth mev bots reimburse funds in the past. Reimbursing does effect the immutability of the chain, we should be celebrating the fact that protorev has given the community the opportunity to do this.
Sure, let it go up 
Interesting debate. One we wouldn’t even be having if ProtoRev didn’t exist. I am against refunding the user any amount. There are obviously some PR benefits to making the user whole, but what precedents would that set? Will we be consistent with this going forward? Here are a few thoughts:
Like mentioned plenty of times, the fault for this transaction ultimately is on the user, Squid, and dYdX. Why Osmosis is being put on the hook for the refund is beyond me. Would you be going and asking the arbitrage bots for a refund if ProtoRev didn’t exist?
dYdX has an insurnace fund for when their traders lose funds for reasons that would seem to fit here. Has @dydxsquid approached these teams and asked them for a refund?
@JohnnyWyles is already working on a proposal that would enable the burning of the OSMO tokens from ProtoRev. It seems to have a lot of support and would have been on chain any day now and this wouldn’t be an option here, or for any other situation in the future.
Slippage loss happens all the time, and even larger trades have happened on Ethereum where bad routing has resulted in a large amounts of slippage. Were refunds given there?
In just about every other situation, the answer is “this product is in beta and there will be issues.” Why is it different here?
If this does pass, what is the bar to get a refund? Do only whales trading 6 figures matter, or will we refund single digit slippage as well? This would set a precedent that is only right for any user who feels they didn’t get enough warning or experienced too much slippage should be entitled to a refund.
People saying “Lets show them what a web3 community is about”, is short sighted. Why would we go through another situation where the community decides to open up the God mode box and start moving funds at will? How can anyone trust the same rules will be applied to them that this user is getting? Sounds like a repeat of web2 small circle favors beginning. Showing that essentially the “cool kids” can decide what happens with funds at any given moment on Osmosis.
The amount of attention for this is kind of insane. It wouldn’t be a bad guess like others have said that this user is either well known, or connected to well known players in this space. It would be nice to get some honesty on that front so we know exactly what is going on. And if they aren’t connected, then we can confirm that as well.
@whitemarlin made a great point too- if this does pass and there is a refund, the Skip team should refund their 20% royalty from this trade as well and contribute to the refund. Squid and dYdX should honestly pay portions as well considering it was their UI and smart contracts that lead to this and just make the user 100% whole.
There should be clear expectations going forward on the future of ProtoRev in general, but also if user refunds should ever be something considered going forward especially when Osmosis wasn’t directly at fault. Levana users should technically be made whole as well if this user is getting made whole.
Seems like the benefits of making this one user whole and then having a few article headlines wouldn’t be worth all of the troubles and landmines this situation creates. Without ProtoRev, I doubt the user would be going to arb bots to ask for a refund. Not sure we can get behind a Yes vote for this one.
In my opinion, the funds should be returned to the user in USD value. I can see that some small traders are upset because the individual might receive “elitist” treatment. However, nearly 300k is a significant amount. No one should have to lose it, and it tarnishes the Osmosis community’s reputation for not being willing to return it. If we have the capability to return it, we should. There’s no harm in returning someone’s funds.
This situation presents an opportunity to establish clear guidelines on when it’s appropriate to propose such actions. For instance, accidentally losing over 100k USD and having the potential to return the funds might justify such a proposal.
Just so we’re clear - If we’re not paying this out of our own pockets and are simply returning what was received accidentally, I believe we should return it.
I find it extremely weird how passionate you are about this ngl. You’re going to great lengths to ensure that a guy who accidentally lost almost 300k doesn’t get it back. You’ve made your point several times. However, continuously posting about this so passionately here and on Twitter seems odd to me. I hope you realize that there’s another person, just like you, on the other end who has lost a significant amount by accident. You have a chance to be kind to someone, but you’re choosing to act this way
What?
I’m weighing in on a governance discussion because as a very active user of Osmosis and its various applications, it means a lot to me that the right precedents are set. Whether you perceive that as weirdly passionate or not is none of my business.
I do mean well, and anyone who knows me in here recognizes that.
I’ve made several different points, as they occured to me. Not sure why a new member that joined literally less than 30 minutes ago is trying to police how and when I contribute.
Fully aware. If there wasn’t someone else on the other end, none of us would be here. I sorely empathise with the user for losing their funds, but, as I’ve stated time and time again, holding them to account is what will be in the best interest of Osmosis long term.
BTW… Feel free to ignore my contributions, if they bother you.
Also, lol… I do contribute a significant amount of volume, not just to Osmosis, but also its perps products. i.e. not a “small trader”.
last thing i’m probably going to say and this is more around how protorev is used, it’s quite disappointing seeing many happy with revenue being made from capital inefficiency when protorev can be used to increase efficiency. Whatever the outcome of this forum post I hope this makes people look beyond the greedy option of burning protorev and opt for incentivising traders and making swaps more efficient, this is how you do better than uniswap and if osmosis doesn’t do it a competitor will.
I agree; it’s concerning to witness someone vehemently opposing the idea of another person receiving a potential life-changing return for their lost funds. Unless their argument is advocating for smaller traders to also receive refunds in such instances, it doesn’t seem to be their goal. It’s almost as if the refund would be coming from their own personal wallet. Regardless, why doesn’t this individual devote more time to holding the actual protocols accountable for routing such unfavorable trades? I.e Skip Protocol! Situations like this should never occur. Until protocols are held responsible, and average users stop losing their funds due to seemingly insignificant events, crypto will continue to suffer from a tarnished reputation.
I only posted a meme before, but here I’ll be serious.
What actually happened here is this:
So, the precedent, if there is one, is this:
If there exists, on the Osmosis chain, a better way to execute your swap than the way that you actually executed it, then you are eligible for compensation proportional to the difference in the amount you received and the amount that the optimal path would have given you.
I find it hard to believe that anyone reasonably wants this to be the policy of Osmosis.
From the Osmosis point of view, i.e. the DEX, the chain, and not the frontend or any affiliated frontend, which should be the only thing the OSMO token governs and hence any discussion or proposal here concerns, because frontends are not part of the decentralized infrastructure and cannot therefore be subject to on-chain governance, the chain and its governors should absolutely not execute any special behavior when the chain did not malfunction.
The OSMO token governs the Osmosis chain, the Osmosis chain received a swap request and executed it. Everything went as expected, why would the Osmosis chain and governors then do something special?
Skip Protocol developed ProtoRev, a module in the chain, which performed as expected and as described when it was voted into an Osmosis chain upgrade. They did not compute the message sent by the user here, so why would they have any accountability here?
If you do want to hold some instutiation accountable, for some reason, it should be the one who did something problematic. In this case, from the user perspective, the institutions involved were:
It seems like the issues likely lie with either of the first two. To me, the obvious problematic part here is the message generated by Squid, since the other 2 parts executed as expected by any reasonable user.
I fully agree with your stance. To clarify my earlier comment, when I mentioned Skip Protocol, I meant it as an entity in this space that should be held accountable, not necessarily in the specific case. I experienced an 80% loss in funds after swapping through Keplr Wallet’s frontend, seemingly due to an error by Skip Protocol. Despite notifying them and them aknowlodgening and correcting the routing issue, I bear the entire loss with no compensation. Accountability in this space must extend beyond the trader when technical issues like this occur.
I disagree with this. The dex backend needs to allow for arbitrary price impacts, as this is needed for low liquidity tokens (such as newly launched tokens going through price discovery or even just memecoins).
In a normal situation, I’m against refunding money when a user’s error is clear as day. But just think about how much dydx users are driving the development of the Cosmos ecosystem. Without the influx of funds from Ethereum, Cosmos will just be a nerds-only ecosystem, with gimmicks like some Chinese smartphone that no one uses.
In another thread, there’s a proposal to allocate 7M for some vague rewards for market makers, but here you can’t give back money to a user which were acquired by your own module? Seems to me like giving back the money in some form would be a reasonable business decision in the medium term.
User that used FixedFloat, Aztec cant be called a noob and he is super privacy oriented or his money came from shady source.
So he is for sure experienced user.
I don’t think he should get his money back just because his mistake cost a lot. Honestly, I’m not into dividing users by how big their blunder is. But this whole topic really makes us think if you could use ProtoRev funds to level up the user experience
Added: Dont want to play a socialist card but the amount lost by user @dydxsquid who i believe “0xfbd” (0xfbd50C82Ea05d0D8b6B302317880060Bc3086866) is quite small for him. I apologize in advance if I have erred in his identification; I conducted what I consider by my personal standards to be a rather superficial on-chain analysis.
Therefore, I believe it is necessary to consider the appropriateness of refunding such operations in principle and not to make an exception for a specific user.
edit2: 0xfbd sent 101 eth to osmo account swapped to 144k osmo and staked it on the date this topic was created
So he bought Osmo on the same day as he created the prop to vote yes on his own prop and to say that he’s a ‘long term supporter’ lol
This situation has officially crossed into ‘Too suspicious to be worth any serious consideration’ - as many have said, had this happened on other chains the user would be laughed out of the room for even suggesting something this ridiculous
This is obviously someone that knows people in Cosmos and was told that his bad trade could be refunded by gas lighting Osmosis governance