Thank you for taking the time to respond and share your perspective. We respect the work that validators and the Foundation are doing, but we feel it’s important to highlight a few critical points that directly affect ERC-20 holders.
In your recent messages from both the Foundation and validators, it is very clear that there is resistance to reopening the bridge mainly because you do not want ERC-20 tokens to re-enter the circulating supply. This was stated explicitly in your own closure proposal, point 5:
“The reduction in circulating supply from unbridged ethDYDX tokens could help counterbalance DYDX token sales and mitigate inflationary pressures on the token.”
From this statement, it is reasonable for ERC-20 holders to believe the bridge was deliberately closed not just for technical or governance reasons, but also to reduce token circulation — effectively locking out part of the community and depriving them of their assets.
Our proposed solution is simple and fair:
• There is no need to “re-purchase” or “re-source” our tokens.
• ERC-20 tokens can simply be sent to the bridge and burned/locked.
• New native tokens can then be minted in the same quantity.
This restores the circulating supply exactly to its original level, without dilution and without impacting other holders.
Why should our user funds remain frozen while the protocol enjoys an artificial reduction in supply? If reducing circulating supply was truly the goal, then let the Foundation or validators voluntarily lock up their tokens — not ours.
Governance limitations
It is also important to recognize that ERC-20 holders cannot participate in governance votes. Any new proposal requiring on-chain approval is unlikely to pass because a small number of validators control the majority of the voting power. Suggesting that we rely solely on such a vote is therefore not a real solution — it only worsens the problem.
What we see from your side
So far, from the Foundation and validator side, we only hear explanations of why everything is “difficult” or “impossible.” But we do not see concrete solutions being offered. This is disappointing, because the protocol has an entire team with the capability to implement technical fixes if the will exists.
Community support
Our discussion thread proposing a fair resolution for ERC-20 holders has already gained over 1,000 views — more than most other topics on the forum. This shows that the community cares deeply about this issue. Are you suggesting that this question is not a priority?
Next steps
Instead of closing or minimizing these discussions, we ask you to bring all validators and the full team into this conversation and actively work together with the affected community to design a fair solution. We are ready to cooperate constructively, but we need to see the same willingness from your side.