Many thanks to the author of this proposal for suggesting a solution to this unfair situation.
I am a KOL, I have been running my Telegram and YouTube channels since 2017, and since 2021 I have been talking about the DYDX project on my resources, sharing dydx referral links with the community and recommending the purchase of DYDX token. Dozens of people have already written to me saying that they simply did not know about the need to transfer their tokens to the native DYDX network and were left hostage.
As of today, >11,000 wallets hold ethDYDX tokens worth >$100, and with the development of the project and the growth of the token price, this number will only increase. Novody can’t just take away people’s access to their funds.
There are millions of valid reasons why people might not have seen this news: some fled the war in Ukraine and didn’t have access to their wallets due to relocation, some fought on the front lines, some were in the hospital, and there could be thousands of other respectful reasons. I have already started collecting a form with the number of victims from my Telegram channel.
I ask the entire community and the DYDX team to accept one of the solutions described in this proposal.
Me personally hold >5000$ worth of ethDYDX tokens and more then 15,000 holders lost their funds because of whales voting. 10,000 wallets hold’s > 1000$ worth of ethDYDX tokens. You can’t just block access to their money.
If Dydx Foundation wouldn’t solve that issue me personally will come to offline events where DYDX is sponsor and talk with Charles D’Haussy!
Your response really sounds like it comes from not a DYDX ERC-20 holder => you are not interested in the problem, because blocking 4.1% of DYDX supply is profitable for you.
”Temporary bridge reopening. This doesn’t seem workable.”
11,000 people hold ethDYDX tokens worth >$100. I personally hold $3,000 in ethDYDX tokens — that’s 5 months of my salary that I invested in this project during 2 years. And now this project has simply frozen my money, and you respond that reopening the bridge will only renew such proposals again and again. Open this bridge 1,000 times if there are still user funds in it, make it permanent until all 100% of tokens wouldn’t be migrated, but you don’t have any rights to block users funds.
“Providing official liquidity on DEX - I don’t see this as feasible”.
This proposal was offered as an example if the team refuses to consider it. You can release the remaining 4.1% of the tokens on the dydx network and create a separate claim portal for the existing ethDYDX holders. There are many options how to solve the issue, and the team has both the technical and financial resources to do it.
From a validator standpoint, reopening the previous bridge infrastructure for a limited time window seems a relatively time-consuming operation. We recommend exploring a centralized exchange–based swap feature, supported by a prime-level broker or liquidity provider with proven infrastructure and deep pools of native dYdX tokens.
However an important caveat has to be addressed right-away. Because native DYDX tokens were not pre-mined to mirror the ERC-20 supply, a supply gap exists that must be sourced before a clean 1:1 migration can occur. There are multiple ways to fill that gap — each with different cost, speed, and governance implications.
One possible path would be to request a community vote to allocate tokens from the community pool, thereby creating the liquidity required for conversions. However, such an approach would effectively dilute the circulating supply, reducing the proportional ownership of all existing holders. This trade-off makes it a sensitive issue, and as a result, passing such a proposal through governance may prove difficult without strong justification and clear benefits for the broader community.
Thank you for sharing this perspective — the CEX swap idea really does sound like a practical solution and could finally give ERC-20 holders a fair migration path.
The most important thing now is to move from discussion to action. Many holders have been waiting for clarity for months, and the uncertainty only grows with time. Even a limited migration window through one reliable exchange would already bring huge relief and restore confidence.
I also agree with the dual-track approach you mentioned — combining a centralized option with a decentralized one would cover all users fairly.
Could you share what we can realistically expect here? Is there already a timeline or a first step planned to start discussions with exchanges or brokers? Knowing when this process might begin would be extremely valuable for the community.
I have 697 ERC-20 DYDX tokens ( I’ve invested ~$2500) locked with no way to use them. This situation is difficult not only for me but for many long-term holders.
The proposed solution via a centralized exchange/broker to swap ERC-20 → dYdX Chain looks like the most fair and simple option. It would:
make migration easy without technical barriers,
protect investors whose funds are currently “frozen”,
speed up the completion of migration.
I support this proposal and kindly ask the team to:
I am very concerned and hope DYDX team is trustworthy and would resolve this issue for their community as soon as possible, just to have an idea about how other projects proceeding migration, this kind of issue is for the first time and haven’t heard any similar
Announced Dec 2024, 91% vote yes, 6 months notice—bridge shut June 9, support ended 13. 94% migrated fine.
Stuck ERC-20s locked or high slippage?
Your fault for ignoring X/forum/Telegram alerts.
Your fault for missing on the DYDX staking rewards in USDC.
No reopen—DYOR means tracking governance, not whining later Evo.
It is 100% Not gonna happen.
Imagine a governance vote where DYDX validators and DYDX stakers contradict their previous votes to comply with tantrums of a herd of newly created forum accounts. - It is not gonna happen.
DYDX is too busy shipping new features and milestones.
I am interested in reading activity reports and ambitious upcoming builds rather than this.
I understand your point, but I think it’s not fair to reduce this issue to simply “your fault.”
Not all token holders are day-to-day governance participants or active forum readers. Many long-time supporters held DYDX in wallets for the long term, and when they came back after the migration window, they found themselves effectively locked out of the ecosystem. These people are still part of the community, and ignoring them risks damaging trust and credibility in the protocol.
Yes, the vote happened, and yes, a large majority migrated in time — but governance is not supposed to punish the minority that missed a window. It is supposed to strengthen the protocol by keeping the community united. Even if reopening the exact same bridge is not possible, the responsibility of the ecosystem is to find some path for ERC-20 holders to migrate without 90% slippage.
Saying “never” or dismissing this as whining does not help. A constructive approach would be exploring realistic alternatives (such as the CEX-based swap idea validators mentioned, or temporary liquidity support) that don’t undermine finality but still respect those left behind.
This is not about tantrums — it’s about fairness and the long-term reputation of dYdX.
No one signed an agreement to track news, chats and forums. Someone there voted and deprived people of their invested funds. Of course, when you don’t care about the others, you can express yourself in this way towards the people who have suffered. When there is news about the purchase of DYDX tokens, all the headlines are full, you can hear from any blogger buy DYDX. But when there is talk about closing the bridge and freezing funds, at least someone would cover this news. Also, the exchanges were silent, although they could make a mailing list about this news, since DYDX was not considered a scam.
Hello. I fully support everyone who described this problem. I personally bought dydx in 2023 and put them in a cold wallet. The erc-20 network is a reliable network and I could not imagine that this would happen. Also, many of my friends did the same as me. Now we do not know what to do. Some friends bought dydx for $ 3 and above. They believed in the project and still believe in it. Please help me solve this problem.
It’s obvious—you’ve exchanged your coins and now you don’t care about the rest. A typical story.
But you’re wrong. It’s the project’s fault that they didn’t leave at least one option for migration until the last holder transfers their coins. This is standard practice for self-respecting projects worldwide. But if the goal was to get rid of some of the holders, then limiting the bridge’s operating time and accusing them of being “too late” is understandable.
Moreover, the notifications were not sufficiently covered in social media and the press. We are talking about users’ money. When dYdX advertised to bloggers to sell its coins, it did so more aggressively and with more publicity. But when it came to closing eth (which is more important news!!!), the project limited itself to a few articles and forgot about bloggers.
And let’s not forget that eth is the main blockchain, and to believe that there will be no bridge from it is something that could not even be dreamed of.
The result: 13,800 people were affected! That is a huge number. It is impossible to blame them. The ambitious plan for the future is to organize a way to save these people.
Don’t tell us fairy tales that there is no way back, that it’s impossible. Anything is possible. Thanks to us raising the alarm, the information has spread to many holders. This kind of high-quality work should have been done by the dYdX Team and Community. But if the project continues to remain silent, several thousand people will raise such a wave that the project will become unpalatable.