Hello community, hello validators,
Spoiler
Give me at least one argument why cutting off 45K participants will benefit the project? Getting rid of the larger part of the Community means killing the ecosystem. It turns out you’re cutting the branch you’re sitting on. You contradict yourselves and the principles of dYdX.
Our position
We advocate for strengthening the ecosystem by reuniting the alienated part of the Community through a renewed and final migration.
-
Argument 1: Too many affected users
We believe that the premature closure of the bridge on June 13, 2025, left a significant gap on the path to decentralization. Etherscan data confirms that about 41.7 million wethDYDX tokens were not migrated and are held on more than 45,000 addresses. This constitutes about 4.2% of the total DYDX supply (1 billion tokens), but more importantly, it affects the MAJORITY of the original Community—retail holders who stored tokens in cold wallets for long-term value preservation, not for speculative trading. These are not insignificant figures, but a substantial part of the ecosystem’s foundation. The fact that they weren’t active doesn’t mean they should be deprived of their funds.
-
Argument 2: Inadequate communication campaign
The informational efforts were extremely insufficient. For example, no dedicated video or warning about the bridge closure was posted on the official dYdX YouTube channel. Forum announcements had extremely low engagement (for example, the key post about the bridge discontinuation garnered less than 300 views in the first weeks, according to the thread statistics). Even on Mintscan (the dYdX Chain explorer), the embedded announcement showed minimal interactions—fewer than 500 total views across related notices. This isn’t speculation; it’s a clear gap, as many holders noted that they heard about the transition to the native network but not about the hard cutoff. Other projects (e.g., Polygon migrations) left windows open precisely to avoid this—why didn’t dYdX? Labeling it a “success” ignores the more than 45,000 stranded addresses, proving the failure of the information campaign.
-
Argument 3: Responsibility to the regulator
The regulator pays special attention to investor protection (e.g., ensuring fair access to assets), as well as market integrity and anti-manipulation measures. Locking out holders due to inadequate communication could invite scrutiny—potentially viewed as an unfair practice with all the ensuing consequences. dYdX’s own rules emphasize the importance of community-driven decisions and equitable token distribution; ignoring this would contradict that spirit.
-
Argument 4: Rectifying oversights
Reopening the migration bridge aligns with the core principles of decentralized governance: inclusivity, transparency, and rectification of oversights.
The first proposal garnered 4.3K views and support from hundreds of people, considering that many couldn’t pass moderation and didn’t participate in the discussion; the current proposal—1.5K views; related topics on the migration issue have sharply increased views over the last 1.5 months. These are historic engagement figures on this forum, and I see no argument for stubbornly resisting the migration issue.
-
Argument 5: Reputation
The issue with locking users has also contributed to the spread of negative publicity around dYdX in the big media (g13m, bearearn, mpost, cryptopanic, cryptorank, coinpaper, coinstats, telegraph, reddit, forklog, incrypted and more). Not resolving the issue will only exacerbate the negativity, which could potentially impact the project’s reputation in the long term.
Participant motivation
When wethDYDX holders ask the Community to consider the possibility of a renewed final migration, I perfectly understand their motivation—not to lose their investments and to remain in the ecosystem (and let thousands of holders thank us for fighting for the rights of all Community members). The position of resuming the migration strengthens trust, reduces fragmentation, and allows avoiding potential legal pitfalls, making it an obvious and reasonable choice.
The opponents’ motivation apparently stems from a desire for “finality” and punishment. But let’s unpack what really changes for them? For people like Vovochka, nothing changes—they have no tokens (or almost none). For validators and stakers, migrating these tokens won’t lead to value dilution—it’s a 1:1 conversion that preserves the total supply while enhancing liquidity and participation on the native chain. The total supply remains capped at 1 billion—no new tokens are minted; these are original tokens from the Ethereum supply. Any “dump” would be limited to the 41.7M unmigrated tokens (4.2% of supply), distributed among more than 45 thousand holders. No one’s share is reduced; rather, a broader Community strengthens governance and adoption.
An interesting fact: some ardent opponents admit that they have no DYDX tokens at all, raising questions about their participation in the discussion. Could it be external motives, such as protecting speculative positions or simply personal grudges? Their position rarely addresses the human factor: long-term holders losing access through no fault of their own.
Mechanics
Previously published several options to the Community for implementing the migration, including:
-
**Bridge. **“We won’t support the bridge because we fear arbitrager attacks”— this is fake concerns stemming from a misunderstanding of how the DEX works. See explanations: here 1, here 2. Accordingly, there can be no obstacles to resuming the bridge a priori.
-
Airdrop. See explanation: here 3. Well, okay, let it not be a bridge, let it be an airdrop—what’s the problem?
Conclusion
About 45,000 addresses (and the holders behind them) support reopening the migration. It’s clear that this is only 4% of the supply, but in quantitative terms—this is the majority of the Community’s voices, who cannot vote. It turns out that the minority decides to the detriment of the majority and the strengthening of the ecosystem as a whole. Simple truth: fewer holders—less decentralization. And all these reasonings “who didn’t migrate deserves punishment” are empty gloating and a desire to weaken the ecosystem.
Show me at least one project that strives not to attract, not to retain, but to get rid of the community? The truth is obvious: preserving the community only strengthens the ecosystem, but not the other way around.
Thus, our position is not emotional—it is pragmatic, focused on strengthening the Community and improving the project’s reputation. Reopening the migration restores justice for more than 45,000 holders, requires little cost, and supports dYdX’s decentralized ideals. I urge Validators and stakers to support this decision.