# SAIL DAO Funding clawback Aftermath **URL:** \ **Category:** SAIL\ **Created:** [July 21, 2024, 7:09pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/sail-dao-funding-clawback-aftermath/2998 "2024-07-21T19:09:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 8
**Author:** ![JohnnyWyles](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/johnnywyles/32/3114_2.png) [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2024, 7:59am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/sail-dao-funding-clawback-aftermath/2998/8 "2024-07-24T07:59:00Z")
> [@LeonoorsCryptoman](#): > > Regarding this; do you mean that the amount of bOSMO and ampOSMO should be enlarged using the 450k OSMO? The backing liquidity of each should be enlarged. Following the targets I laid out in [LST support on Osmosis - a multistep plan](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/lst-support-on-osmosis-a-multistep-plan/2978#targets-3) I don’t believe that we should be increasing the LST holdings themselves - however, removing the bOSMO and ampOSMO that does exist right now would be harmful to these communities and isn’t fair while we own so much stOSMO. The other benefit is that we can use CL for this, which lets them see more usage with other Osmosis apps. I know Trix has been trying to get both onto Membrane for a while and integration with cosmwasm pools has been more awkward. Imagine other teams face similar issues. > [@LeonoorsCryptoman](#): > > Here you mean that this would mean the killswitch from the Osmosis side is removed, because the stake of the Osmosis Community Pool is greatly reduced? Precisely. If we returned the OSMO then keep the kill switch. If we don’t, then the community should see the ~50k OSMO in the plan above to be the seed funding that doesn’t need supervision. This also applies to the veto right too. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/sail-dao-funding-clawback-aftermath/2998)._