Proposal in Support of Reopening the dYdX Bridge
We sincerely appreciate the attention and support given to the current proposal - it is very important for the entire dYdX community and shows that the project is not indifferent to its users.
I am the author of the previous proposal on reopening the bridge - DRC: “Migration Solution for ERC-20 DYDX Holders”, which received more than 3.8k views and 3.8k reactions - making it one of the most discussed DRCs in the forum’s history, while 95% of other DRCs barely reach 100 views. This clearly demonstrates that the issue is truly urgent and requires proper attention and correction.
Given the resonance that this DRC caused, it becomes evident that the delegators who voted to close the bridge made a mistake that led to negative consequences. It is normal to make mistakes - but just as any technical bug caused by a faulty update is fixed through a follow-up patch, this governance decision should also be corrected by reopening the bridge, since it has caused strong backlash and dissatisfaction among community members.
1. On Legal Risks
We are convinced that there is no ground for legal or regulatory risks if the bridge is reopened, because users would simply regain rightful access to their funds - leaving no basis for complaints or claims. This is not about granting new rights but about restoring access to legitimately owned assets. It is a matter of fairness and accountability that carries no technical or financial risks for the protocol.
On the contrary, refusing to reopen the bridge will demonstrate to outside observers that a closed circle of validators decided to block the funds of 45,000 retail users, which would inevitably trigger a new wave of complaints, public criticism, and filings with regulatory authorities.
The conclusion from this point is clear: there are no risks in reopening the bridge, while keeping it closed continues to pose reputational and regulatory risks.
2. On Economic Rationale
It is important to emphasize that the affected users are long-term token holders, not speculators. Most ethDYDX tokens belong to active community members who have kept them for years in cold wallets without engaging in short-term trading. Their goal is not to sell - but simply to regain rightful access to their assets, which is a fundamental right in any decentralized system that values fairness and property rights.
The conclusion from this point is also clear: reopening the bridge carries no risks. On the contrary, it reinforces the principles of ownership, fairness, and decentralization.
3. On the Role of the Community
We fully agree that the final decision must be made by the community. However, it is important to emphasize that the community is not just the group of large token holders who will vote on this proposal, but the 45,000 individual users who hold tokens in their wallets - whose reactions and activity were visible in the previous proposal.
These community members currently cannot even participate in the governance process, since their tokens remain locked and unusable for voting.
If the bridge is reopened, the project will gain thousands of engaged participants who have been active on the forum over the past month. Many of these holders will delegate their tokens to validators and take part in the network’s governance, making the protocol more decentralized and resilient.
If the bridge remains closed, the protocol will lose all of these contributors.
The conclusion is obvious: keeping the bridge closed leaves part of the community alienated and frustrated, unable to take part in the protocol’s life, while reopening it will eliminate dissatisfaction and foster an active, loyal community.
We sincerely hope that open discussion and a balanced approach will lead to a decision that restores trust in the DAO and strengthens the reputation of the dYdX ecosystem for years to come.