[DRC] Re-enable support for the wethDYDX Smart Contract (i.e., the Bridge) on the dYdX Chain side for 12 months

Proposals
28

Hello Community,

We would like to clarify an inaccuracy in one of the replies above:

“At a recent meeting at TOKEN2049, community member @andreisobolev discussed the situation with @Charles, steps were recommended to launch the relevant discussion, and with validator support, the Foundation will also back the decision.”

To clarify, neither the dYdX Foundation nor any of its employees expressed support for or “backed” the proposal. The Foundation’s position on this matter remains as outlined here.

While the Foundation actively supports governance participation, education, and the broader dYdX ecosystem, it remains a neutral stakeholder and refrains from influencing or advocating for specific governance outcomes. Any next steps on this issue should come from the community to preserve dYdX’s decentralization.

Thank you for your attention.

5 Likes
29

Hello Foundation,

That’s right, thank you for pointing that out. There was a typo in the text, I’ve corrected it.:+1:

1 Like
30

Andrei Sobolev and his mignons decided to play with the wrong guy :slight_smile: Ok, you posted my telegram name, you can also post my message in that group so everybody can draw a conclusion

4 Likes
31

Hi, RealVovochka!
I’m a member of the chat and have seen a few of your messages there, so I can respond to your comment objectively.

  1. Your messages did sound friendly, but your motivation for joining the group isn’t clear. I don’t know exactly why you were banned, but most likely the admins are keeping only those members who are directly affected by the situation. You yourself wrote that you’re not a DYDX token holder.

  2. Regarding the “coordinated actions”: yes, there is indeed a certain “order of actions” in the group. This was done, firstly, to help people who found themselves in a difficult situation and don’t know what to do. And secondly, to make sure everything stays organized rather than chaotic. Like in any such group, there’s naturally a leader.

To sum up: there’s a real fact that people were affected and remain stuck in ERC-20 — that’s undeniable. The activity of those affected is completely natural; people just want to reclaim what rightfully belongs to them. But the activity of those who are “not involved” is less clear to me. Why exactly do we owe you any explanations? If the validators, who have the right to vote, decide to introduce a condition to verify wallets, our community would have no objection to that. I’ll repeat once again — we have only one goal: to reclaim what rightfully belongs to us.

16 Likes
32

To summarize you banned the member of the dydx communiuty that posted a few friendly messages.
You didnt replied to me in the group just banned.
Than the @Travolta mentioned my personal information (telegram handle ) here. What are you expecting after that?

While i mention that i dont hold any ethdydx tokens, I haven’t seen a single wallet posted here with the confirmation of ownership.

3 Likes
33

As a CLC validator, we’re against reopening the bridge in its previous form.

This is due to the potential risk of a token dump attack by arbitragers.

Right now, you can buy ethDYDX on Uniswap for $0.05.
One could simply buy it now and sell it through the bridge to extract money from the market.

image
image1121×769 58.1 KB

So, what would be a better solution?

There was a precedent in Cosmos with a special measure to restore assets one time for ICO participants who lost seed phrase.

We think it would be best to have any large holders submit their addresses, and based on a snapshot from when the bridge closed, restore the ethDYDX on the dYdX v4 Chain only for tokens that were held at that time and have since been sent to a burn address.

Also, since the official period for the bridge has expired, if this special measure is to be taken, it would be better to include a discount, such as contributing 20% to the community pool.

7 Likes
34

I am an ERC-20 DYDX token holder who didn’t manage to migrate my tokens on time simply because the information about the bridge closure wasn’t clearly or widely communicated. However, I don’t blame anyone for this - I believe it was an honest mistake that can still be fixed by reopening the bridge or by finding another fair solution. Personally, I fully support the reopening of the bridge.

I want to emphasize that DYDX is not only the team, the funds, or the validators - it’s also the community of holders.

As an active member of the DYDX community, if I had my DYDX tokens in the native chain, I would absolutely vote “YES” for reopening the bridge. Unfortunately, since I hold ERC-20 tokens, I am technically unable to participate in governance.

There are currently 41.7 million ERC-20 DYDX tokens still locked, and it’s fair to assume that nearly all their holders would vote “YES” to reopen the bridge. This means millions of voices are unheard - which feels somewhat unfair - but we still hope that the rest of the dYdX community and validators will support us, because anyone could have found themselves in our position.

Regarding CLC concerns about a possible arbitrage or token-dump attack:

1. The reason ERC-20 DYDX trades around $0.05 is not because it has no value, but because there is no liquidity on DEXs. If someone starts buying ERC-20 DYDX, they would create that liquidity, and even small trades would quickly balance the price toward parity. There is practically no room for “risk-free” profit here.

2. Even if someone buys these tokens on a DEX, this does not impact DYDX chain economics, because no new tokens are created - the total ERC-20 DYDX supply remains 41.7 million, the same as before.

3. Your idea to restore assets based on a snapshot from the moment the bridge was closed is technically interesting and shows your willingness to find a compromise.

However, this approach could be unfair to many real holders. After the bridge was closed, some users - in panic - tried to test smart contracts, moved tokens, or even sold them at extreme losses (-99%) thinking migration was permanently impossible.

If these users later buy back some of those tokens to regain access once the bridge reopens, the snapshot method would exclude them completely, even though they are genuine holders who acted in confusion, not with malicious intent.

4. Reopening the bridge will not create new tokens - there will still be 41.7 million ERC-20 DYDX in existence. The fairest solution is to give every token a chance to be migrated to the native chain, ensuring equality and restoring trust in the protocol.

In conclusion:

Reopening the bridge is not about profit or speculation - it’s about fairness, accountability, and restoring access for thousands of genuine community members who were unintentionally left behind.

This decision would strengthen trust in DYDX governance and show that the ecosystem stands for inclusion, not exclusion.

51 Likes
35

This is very innacurate. That screenshot you show from uniswap, the highest volume pool amongst all the ethDYDX pools on uniswap has a $2k daily volume, the second largest pool has $1.2k 30 day volume, this is just insignificant compared to the $6-10 million daily volume of DYDX. A few thousand dollars is negligable compared to several millions daily volume, there can’t be any ‘dump attack’.

That was a very different situation where ICO participants lost the seed phrase which was the direct fault of those holders and sending them ATOM without the seed phrase was an exception and a process that took years to coordinate until completion. This situation is totally different, the ethDYDX holders didn’t lose any seed phrase, and as many mentioned they are long term holders who don’t follow frequent news or holders who don’t speak english, or didn’t have access to the internet due to war or many other reasons. Moreover, before the bridge was closed it was mentioned by Nethermind: ‘If this proposal passes and the Bridge support is ceased, the dYdX community—if there is sufficient interest—could consider developing a procedure and submitting a governance proposal to migrate any remaining ethDYDX on Ethereum to DYDX on the dYdX Chain’

29 Likes
37

Dear community and dYdX team.

I am the owner of approximately 28,000 dYdX tokens on the Ethereum network and am ready to provide the team with all the necessary information for verification.

Please support token holders in opening a bridge or providing other migration measures to restore a healthy atmosphere and integrity to the dYdX community.

Let’s work together toward our common goal of becoming the best DEX in the entire Web3 space.

Best regards, Fernando B.

29 Likes
38

This is a decentralized community proposal by a group of dYdX Validators, dYdX Foundation and other entities already clarified that they are neutral and not involved in governance processes, the voting will be made by the community.

This is not correct, these tokens are not diluting any supply since it was the original supply and actually these token holders won’t be able to participate in the governance process to re-enable the bridge

32 Likes
39

I personally want to know how many people are REALLY impacted and by WHAT NUMBER of eth-DYDX tokens.

Can we ask each impacted person to send 123 ($41.51) eth-DYDX to themselves and post the transaction here? We can then sum up the total to gauge true intent/impact

5 Likes
40

Regardless of whether you support or not support, and you hold staked-DYDX tokens (and therefore have a vote), you have an important thing to do RIGHT NOW. First, unstake your DYDX tokens since we don’t know how validators plan to vote. It takes 21 days to unstake or re-delegate so it is important to do this now. Once you have DYDX tokens in your wallet, you can wait to see how validators plan to vote on this proposal Once this is clear, you can stake with that validator that is aligned with your wishes.

4 Likes
41

image
image3024×4032 1.51 MB

1 Like
42

Lawrence, no need to do this its easy to sign a message on etherscan with the text showing the nickname on the forum.

2 Likes
43

@andreisobolev the way you hid your DYDX Hostages Telegram group, where you coordinated your work, right after it was mentioned in this discussion casts all your efforts in a negative light.

You are either fully transparent with the community or you should not be part of it.

3 Likes
44

Dear forum uncles and real users,

  • Manipulation Alert: This push to reopen the DYDX bridge is nothing short of blatant governance skulduggery.

  • Validator Flip-Flop: Certain validators, having voted for the close of the bridge, are now mysteriously flipping to resurrect the blasted thing.

  • Long Overdue: As Lawrence rightly observed, for 20 months the message has been repeated. Seems everyone got it but a duo who is trying to make us think they are representing 1000s.

  • Fake Buzz: The forum’s abuzz with bots and paid shills—utterly transparent, that.

  • End It Swiftly: Let’s accelerate the vote to seal the “no” and dispatch this tiresome charade.

  • True Priorities: I’m far more excited about the roadmap, fresh features, and integrations—rather than this orchestrated farce.

Right then, vote NO forthwith, and back to work, chaps!

6 Likes
45

I understand that everyone in this discussion wants clarity and fairness, but let’s stay focused on the actual issue rather than personal disputes.

If anyone holds a personal grudge against members of the affected community, that’s a separate matter and shouldn’t interfere with the process or the principle of fairness.

Do we really need to “prove” that people on this forum hold DYDX tokens? That’s a rhetorical question - the existence of ERC-20 holders is an undeniable fact. There are 41,7 million tokens and over 45,000 affected users. This proposal is not for me personally, nor for any individual, but for all token holders who couldn’t migrate - regardless of whether they are active on this forum or even aware of the discussion yet.

What matters now is finding a fair and technically sound solution for the entire DYDX ecosystem.

I kindly ask the moderators to help maintain an objective and constructive tone in this thread, so we can move the discussion forward productively and respectfully.

55 Likes
46

Once again, we see an unfounded and illogical accusation of fraud directed at the community.

On validator support.

Let me give a simple example: operating system updates on phones are released regularly to fix mistakes made in previous versions.

The bridge closure is exactly such a mistake - it locked 41.7 million tokens belonging to a large number of participants, leaving them with no way to access or use them.

Reopening the bridge is like a system update aimed at correcting that mistake.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that some validators recognize that the decision to close the bridge was unsuccessful and are now ready to reconsider it.

Reopening the bridge does not violate any rules - on the contrary, at the time of its closure, there was a clear clause stating that the bridge could be reopened if the community required it through the DAO process.

Regarding the claims about “bots.”

Such a statement is completely unfounded and shows that you may not have fully understood the essence and scale of the problem.

The discussion on the forum is the result of genuine user activity - from people who were directly affected by the bridge closure.

Your call to hastily accelerate the voting process in order to disrupt it only shows one thing - your goal is to obstruct a fair solution, and your motivation appears to be personal resentment or another dishonest intent.

Your comment lacks a single concrete argument explaining how reopening the bridge could harm the project or the community. Therefore, such statements appear more emotional than constructive.

A kind request to the moderators - please pay attention to such unsubstantiated comments to maintain a healthy discussion and prevent further spam.

52 Likes
47

What actions will be performed to mitigate this (snapshot)?

What are the costs of enabling and running the bridge?

2 Likes
48

Fair solution to let @andreisobolev bridge the tokens he bought at 6 cents?

3 Likes