Я дуже довгий час тримав dydx і навіть не бачив інформації що треба перевести з сєті erc20 ,що нам дальше робити ?
19 Likes
I missed the information about the migration as well. Please, be respectful to the holders and re-open the bridge so lot of people can change their tokens 1:1.
21 Likes
I am also a token holder and found out about the closure only few weeks ago.
18 Likes
Dear DYDX team! We understand that the information about the bridge closure has been publicized and it is our responsibility to monitor it. However, it is worth noting that many exchanges have supported the deposit and withdrawal of DYDX tokens exclusively on the Ethereum network for years. Many users simply did not have the opportunity to withdraw tokens on the native network. We understand that our tokens are our responsibility, but we ask you to meet us halfway in solving this problem. Thank you!
26 Likes
100% agree with people here, actually I wasnt realising how many of us with ERC-dydx left in our wallets, all of us for so many reasons just did not swapped our tokens, and i think it would be very pleaseful if you will open the bridge again for any-time period.
With all respect and love to the DYDX, your investors!
26 Likes
My funds are also blocked. No one talked about closing the bridge anywhere. Restore the bridge or give the opportunity to transfer funds to CEX on the ETH network!
25 Likes
Dear dYdX community,
We understand that the discontinuation of support for the wethDYDX smart contract (the “Bridge”) has created challenges for some members of the dYdX community, and we want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised.
Our goal is to provide clarity around the dYdX Foundation’s role and the governance process that determined this outcome.
Bridge Discontinuation
As noted in prior Forum posts and in this blog, the decision to discontinue support for the Bridge was made through a two-step governance process by dYdX governance participants (dYdX Chain validators and their respective delegators):
-
December 7, 2024: A text proposal passed to cease support for the Bridge by June 2025.
-
June 13, 2025: A parameter-change proposal finalized the discontinuation of support for the Bridge.
Additional Clarifications
“Re-enabling the Bridge”
The dYdX Foundation does not have the ability or authority to re-enable or extend Bridge support. Any reconsideration would need to come from a new governance proposal and be approved by the dYdX community.
“Providing Liquidity”
Some community members have suggested that the dYdX Foundation provide liquidity on decentralized and/or centralized exchanges. We understand that liquidity is an important concern for many community members. However, it’s important to clarify the role of the dYdX Foundation here too. The Foundation is a community-funded, non-profit entity. It does not hold large proprietary reserves, nor is it structured to provide market-making services.
“Alternative migration solutions”
As with any protocol change, such initiatives must be community-driven and follow the governance proposal lifecycle.
Next Steps
Overall, the discontinuation of the Bridge was a formal governance decision finalized on June 13, 2025. Any potential solutions for liquidity or bridging should be community-driven and must not depend on or involve the dYdX Foundation.
In this case, it would likely make sense for interested parties to:
-
align on a potential solution on the dYdX Forum,
-
introduce a text proposal to gauge dYdX community alignment, and
-
If the text proposal passes, and if necessary, follow up with another on-chain proposal.
6 Likes
Dear dYdX Team,
Despite the decision to discontinue the ethDYDX bridge, I would like to emphasize that not all token holders were aware of this situation. Many users are long-term investors (hodlers) who do not follow project updates on a regular basis. As a result, their assets ended up being “locked” on Ethereum — one of the most reliable networks — but effectively stripped of their current value.
For this group of participants, it is extremely important to preserve at least one available mechanism to transfer their tokens into the dYdX network on a 1:1 basis. This would allow holders to continue supporting your project without losses and maintain confidence in its long-term growth.
We sincerely hope that this situation will soon turn out to be just a minor misunderstanding, and that the dYdX team will take all possible steps to restore a fair transition.
Thank you very much for your attention and for your hard work!
31 Likes
Dear DYDX Team
I have been a holder of DYDX tokens in the ERC-20 standard for about a year. Previously DYDX operated exclusively on the Ethereum network, and my tokens were stored in a hot wallet for a long time.
I may not have been sufficiently vigilant, and that is my fault. Nevertheless, I sincerely ask the DYDX team to consider providing an additional opportunity to transfer our tokens to a supported network. I hope for your understanding and am ready to cooperate to resolve the situation.
30 Likes
Yes, I’m also stuck in the erc 20 network. And there are many of us. So let justice prevail!
22 Likes
Dear DYDX Foundation, thank you very much for responding to our requests and bringing this DRC to your attention.
As the creator of this proposal and on behalf of the entire DYDX community who were unable to migrate ethDYDX tokens in a timely manner, I would like to provide some responses to your last comment and then voice our proposal:
1. You refer to the proposals of December 7, 2024 and June 13, 2025 as indisputable facts of your notification about the need to migrate tokens. But both of these proposals together did not collect even 1000 views. Proof1, Proof2. While there are tens of times more ethDYDX holders with positive balances. Many were physically unable to see this news for a hundred valid reasons, so we unanimously believe that such significant news was not properly covered and the proposal requires revision.
2. To our great regret, decisions on approval of proposals are made by the number of tokens, not by the number of people. It is no secret that such proposals are made by team members, delegators and large holders. Even if 10,000 people with balances of $100 vote “for” any proposal, then literally 2 delegators with their votes and the number of tokens will be able to block it. Therefore, it is very surprising for us how a small group of people can arbitrarily block the tokens of tens of thousands of other people and there is great concern that a new proposal on our behalf will be blocked by validators, because this proposal will not be profitable for them.
You personally contacted all exchanges, funds and large holders and informed them about the need to migrate tokens, but did not properly convey the news to private investors. Moreover, the migration period of 6 months is catastrophically short for such a number of people.
Now regarding the solutions:
We ask you, as the organizers and founders of the project, we personally ask the CEO of the DYDX Foundation Charles, the COO of DYDX David Gogel and all other influential persons of the DYDX project to create a proposal themselves (otherwise it will not be taken seriously) to restore the bridge or resume deposits on CEX and ask all top holders and delegators of DYDX to personally support this proposal, as you personally asked all large investors, CEXs and delegators to migrate tokens to dydxchain before closing the bridge. @dYdX_Ops_subDAO @dYdXGrants @Govmos @charles
63 Likes
Thank you for responding to us!
Absolutely agree. 45.000 people just losing money because they didn’t see the announcement? Thats totally unfair! You have to provide an opportunity for your holders to transfer their tokens in Dydx chain. I have never thought that I will not be able to transfer Dydx using ERC-20 as always.
Solutions have been already written a bit earlier. Please, solve this problem.
39 Likes
This is just unbelievable, doing the right things, keeping assets on a cold wallet, and in the result - funds are lost! Great! Have a nice day to everybody!
27 Likes
You are very brave 
If you have opportunity, please do this 
17 Likes
Dydx community! Please, let’s find a solution. It should not be like that. It seems like you scammed almost 5% of people who supported your project for several years! Let us believe that you are honest!!!
35 Likes
I was a fan of this Dydx project. For two years, as a holder, I have been storing coins on a cold wallet in the ETH network. I and several of my comrades have become locked out, life circumstances do not allow us to follow the news and forums. Please open a bridge for withdrawing tokens or give the opportunity to exchange them, this would be the most correct decision and respect for your clients. I have a very large amount hanging, I ask for a solution to this problem!
36 Likes
“I have been holding my ERC-20 tokens for over two years. I am not an active community member, but I follow many major cryptocurrency channels, and I have not seen any information about the bridge shutdown anywhere. How was I supposed to know about it? I specifically searched using hashtags—this information was nowhere to be found. Was I supposed to monitor your channels specifically? Are you serious? You are a serious organization, an exchange, yet you refer to this absurdity. Everyone who chose safe storage (cold and hot wallets) ended up locked out. I hope you find an adequate solution!”
38 Likes
Thank you for the clarifications.
First, you write that any solution for liquidity or bridging “should be community-driven and must not depend on or involve the dYdX Foundation.” This reads like a categorical ban on any Foundation involvement. Yet the Foundation is already involved: it publishes clarifications and lays out “Next steps.” Moreover, during the bridge shutdown the Foundation also played a facilitating role. If governance is sovereign, why can’t the DAO mandate neutral, procedural support from the Foundation (a text-proposal template, lifecycle guidance, collection and publication of metrics) without using “proprietary reserves” and without acting as a market maker? Either link to a document that explicitly prohibits such a mandate, or clarify that this is a default preference, not a legal rule, and that the DAO may assign these procedural tasks to the Foundation.
Second, the statement that “the Foundation does not have the authority to re-enable the Bridge” is correct strictly with respect to unilateral action. It does not imply refusal to facilitate the governance process on the community’s behalf. Within its stated non-profit role, the Foundation could offer minimal, high-value help: publish a short guide to the governance lifecycle, provide a text-proposal template, and post a calendar for discussions/votes. None of this requires “proprietary reserves” or turns the Foundation into a market maker, but it greatly improves transparency.
Third, there is a procedural asymmetry. The shutdown used the standard path “text proposal → on-chain parameter change.” By the same logic, that path is applicable to remediation (temporary reactivation or an alternative migration mechanism). Saying the Foundation “should not be involved” here looks like a break in standards: involvement was acceptable for turning infrastructure off, but not for turning it back on. It would help if the Foundation committed to neutral facilitation of any remediation, to the same extent it did during the shutdown.
Fourth, on liquidity. Stating that the Foundation has no large reserves and isn’t structured as a market maker explains why it cannot provide liquidity itself. It does not explain declining non-financial support: compiling and publishing verifiable metrics on remaining ethDYDX, structuring the menu of options for discussion, moderating open working sessions. All of this is process, not balance-sheet use.
Finally, the message uses categorical language (“must not involve the Foundation”) without references to governing documents. If this is truly a requirement of the charter/mandate, please provide direct citations. If not, it would be more accurate to frame it as a recommendation, preserving the DAO’s right to assign the Foundation purely procedural functions.
In short: we see a few points that would benefit from clarification:
-
The categorical “must not involve the Foundation” isn’t backed by cited rules, yet the Foundation is already involved (and previously helped facilitate the shutdown).
-
“No unilateral authority” seems to be read as “no neutral procedural support at all,” which doesn’t necessarily follow.
-
There’s a procedural asymmetry: governance was used to turn the bridge off, but Foundation involvement is disclaimed when discussing ways to turn anything back on.
-
The liquidity stance focuses on what the Foundation can’t do, while overlooking non-financial remediation it could reasonably facilitate (templates, timelines, metrics, moderation).
-
There are no references to governing documents or basic remediation communication standards.
64 Likes
It is imperative that ERC-20 holders understand the critical underlying problem:
Native DYDX tokens were not pre-mined to mirror the ERC-20 supply. A supply gap exists that must be resolved before a clean 1:1 migration can occur.
Without sourcing the necessary native DYDX to match ERC-20 balances, no bridging or swap mechanism — whether centralized or decentralized — can be achieved.
Next Steps:
1. Fund the Swap
The immediate question is how to source this supply. The most direct approach would be to request a community vote for the allocation of tokens from the community pool. However, this comes with a major trade-off: it would effectively dilute the circulating supply, impacting all existing holders.
This makes the proposal inherently difficult to pass through governance, as it requires strong consensus that the benefits of completing ERC-20 migration outweigh the cost of dilution.
2. Perform the Swap
Once the sourcing question is addressed, the method of execution becomes the next step. Here, we recommended exploring a centralized exchange swap mechanism as a temporary, efficient solution. Such an approach could reduce the cost and complexity of rolling out additional bridge infrastructure, while still delivering a smooth migration path for ERC-20 holders.
Our Position
- The real problem is not the bridging mechanism, but the need to convince current native holders to accept spending community funds.
- We recognize this is a difficult path forward, unfortunately it remains the only viable route to achieving full migration.
- In the event such a proposal comes to a governance vote, Govmos will adhere to its principle of political neutrality and cast an abstain vote, leaving the final decision to our delegators.
11 Likes
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.
74 Likes