Every post that goes against your charade you want “moderated.”
Oh brother. Can we end this charade already.
This is mentioned in the proposal and the FAQs: 'All validators need to be aware that they need to run an eth node for the wethDYDX Smart Contract to function
Additionally, the dYdX Ops subDAO is recommended to update the bridge interface bridge.dydx.trade to allow bridging for the 12 months reopening of the bridge’
You can see my previous answer about this here
I also flagged this comment, this is a community discussion about an important proposal and constructive comments, ideas, and good arguments are welcome. However, personal attacks and accusations are not welcome and having to resort to personal attacks is an indication that no solid arguments against the proposal can be presented
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.
I was against closing the bridge in the first place as we saw this stuff coming from a mile away. dYdX isnt the first chain this happened too. But community sentiment was clearly in favour in the long run so we voiced support in the end.
However, undoing this is not really an option due to the market dynamics already widely discussed in this forum.
We could support a migration of some sort for unbridged users based on data analytics of their behaviour on their ethDYDX tokens since the bridge was closed (sold or traded DQs them) but we will not support simply re-opening the current bridge has it has significant risks for the ecosystem.
I hope this clarifies my and the Lavender.Five view on this matter.
best,
Gijs
Thank you, Gijs, for taking the time to share your thoughts on this matter!
However, could you explain what is meant by “market dynamics” and how this relates to the impossibility of reversing previously made decisions? Perhaps you could provide a link to an earlier discussion on the forum?
And the second question: regarding the significant risks for the ecosystem—could you elaborate on what risks you are referring to?
Thank you in advance for your explanations!
Just a reminder that 96% of all eth-DYDX tokens were bridged and percentage-wise, small supply (4%) were left behind. Compare with ENG/SCRT where 24% were not bridged. ENG to SCRT bridging was for 6 months (June 2020 to Jan 2021), versus 20 months for eth-DYDX (Nov 2023 to June 2025). Big difference.
Counterexamples: Projects That Extended Migrations Despite Low Unmigrated Percentages
To counter the post’s implication that dYdX’s 96% migration rate justifies closure (unlike ENG/SCRT’s higher stranding), here are two well-documented cases where projects kept migration bridges/portals open or extended them for extended periods despite achieving 95%+ migration rates early on. These prioritized community inclusion over “finality,” avoiding the backlash seen in ENG/SCRT and aligning with dYdX’s equitable governance ethos. In both, the remaining low percentage (2-4%) represented thousands of retail holders, much like our ~45K addresses.
- Aave (LEND to AAVE Token Migration, 2020-2022): Aave’s upgrade from LEND to AAVE began in October 2020 with a 100:1 swap ratio via an open migration contract—no initial hard deadline. By late 2020, it had already hit ~67% migration, reaching 96% by mid-2021 despite strong early adoption. Rather than closing at 96% (leaving ~4% or 16 million LEND equivalent stranded across thousands of addresses), the community debated and extended access through governance votes, keeping the portal live for nearly 2 years until a 2022 proposal finally sunset it at 96.04%. This handled the “long tail” of inactive/cold wallet holders without dilution risks, boosting AAVE’s TVL to billions and governance participation. Even post-2022, informal support via exchanges persisted for stragglers. Lesson: A 4% tail (mirroring dYdX) warranted extension, not abandonment—preventing value lockup and fostering trust.
- Polygon (MATIC to POL Ecosystem Token Migration, 2024-Ongoing): Polygon launched the MATIC-to-POL upgrade in September 2024 as part of Polygon 2.0, with automatic swaps for PoS chain holders and manual bridges/portals for Ethereum/CEX users. It quickly achieved 97.83% migration by August 2025 (just 11 months in), leaving only 2.17% (45 million MATIC) unmigrated across retail wallets and exchanges. Despite this high rate, Polygon extended bridge support indefinitely for the remainder, with CEXs like Coinbase handling conversions as late as October 2025 and community tools remaining active to avoid stranding. This low unmigrated slice (even smaller than dYdX’s 4%) prompted no closure; instead, it enhanced POL’s utility in staking/governance, driving 30% developer growth and $1.23B TVL post-migration. No dumps occurred—prices stabilized via organic convergence. This shows extensions for <3% tails strengthen ecosystems without chaos.
These examples flip the narrative: High migration rates (96-98%) don’t mandate closure; they justify targeted extensions to capture retail holdouts, preserving decentralization. For dYdX, reopening for our 4% (~41.7M tokens, 45K addresses) follows this proven playbook—fair, low-risk, and pro-community. Let’s not repeat ENG/SCRT’s regrets.
people keep throwing out 45k addresses yet nobody has gathered actual onchain evidence there are more than 100 people/addresses who care, as can be easily proven by: 1) signing onchain message on etherscan or 2) sending a set amount of eth-DYDX to yourself such as ‘12.345’ (~$4 worth)
To which risks are you referring to specifically? I already covered the risks that I think you are referring to here and also in the proposal, however the risks for not re-enabling the bridge are more significant and hence the reason for presenting this proposal
Dear friends, good afternoon!
I’d like to share a few thoughts out loud. For example, I have the Matic token — it also migrated to its own network, and there were absolutely no issues.
You can easily make the conversion through MetaMask, the bridge is open, and no one lost their funds. Everything is transparent and fair.
So, if a project truly has a good reputation and operates openly, we can take this as an example and show how their colleagues act — honestly and with respect for the community.
Difference is MATIC is not a L1 and inherits its security model from Ethereum. An L1 chain’s security depends on amount of staked native tokens. dYdXChain is an L1.
I’m an ethDYDX holder, and I want to express my full support for this proposal.
Re-enabling the bridge, even temporarily, is the fairest and most reasonable solution for all ERC-20 holders who were left without a proper migration path.
Thank you, Cosmic Validator and all supporting validators, for your efforts and commitment to resolving this long-standing issue fairly.
Dear DYDX Team,
I am writing to you in securing and governing the dYdX Chain, a beacon of decentralized innovation in DeFi. As dedicated stewards of this ecosystem, your decisions shape the trust and future of our community.
We, the approximately 45,000 holders of ERC-20 DYDX tokens on Ethereum, find ourselves in a profoundly challenging position since the bridge closed on June 13, 2025. Over 41.6 million tokens—valued at around $25 million at the time—remain unmigrated, now excluded from the official supply, rendering them largely illiquid and disconnected from the thriving native chain.
The stark reality is that ERC-20 DYDX trades at roughly $0.36, while native DYDX benefits from staking rewards, governance participation, and full ecosystem utility that these holders cannot access. Alternative DEX swaps impose slippage of 80-90%, effectively trapping value and causing significant, ongoing losses for loyal supporters who trusted in dYdX’s vision.
This situation feels inherently unfair: many of us, including long-term believers, were not adequately notified or able to migrate in time, despite our commitment to the protocol’s growth. Leaving us sidelined undermines the principles of inclusivity and fairness that dYdX champions.
I humbly urge you to support reopening the bridge or endorsing a fair migration proposal, such as the one under discussion on the governance forum. This compassionate step would reintegrate 45,000 voices, boost liquidity, and strengthen the chain’s decentralization—ultimately benefiting all stakeholders.
Your leadership can turn this hardship into a testament to dYdX’s resilience and community-first ethos. Thank you for considering this plea; I am confident in your wisdom to act justly.
With gratitude and optimism,
A Concerned DYDX ERC-20 Holder
Dear dYdX Validators, Core Contributors, and Fellow Community Members,
As a long-term dYdX supporter and holder, I strongly support the proposal to re-enable the wethDYDX bridge for 12 months to allow a fair and transparent migration of remaining ERC-20 DYDX tokens to the dYdX Chain.
The bridge closure has unintentionally left over 41.7 million ethDYDX stranded on Ethereum, affecting many loyal holders who believed in the long-term vision of dYdX. These users are not asking for any privilege or special treatment — they only request a fair opportunity to complete the migration process that was promised as part of the transition to the new chain.
Re-opening the bridge temporarily:
Restores trust in dYdX governance and fairness toward all token holders.
Prevents reputational damage and potential legal conflicts from affected users.
Does not compromise security, as validators and the chain remain fully protected.
Strengthens the decentralization narrative, showing that community governance truly listens to its members.
We, the community, value the validators’ role and appreciate the security considerations you uphold. But closing the bridge permanently would unfairly harm genuine holders and damage confidence in governance fairness.
Let’s prove that dYdX governance is responsive, transparent, and community-driven.
I call on all validators and community members to support this proposal — not only to reopen the bridge, but to reaffirm the principles that made dYdX a trusted decentralized ecosystem.
With respect and gratitude,
hOANG NGUYEN ANH
A long-term dYdX holder and supporter Since 2023
Let’s keep the discussion factual and respectful. No one here is supporting fraud or manipulation - the on-chain data is transparent and immutable.
Reopening the bridge for a limited time isn’t about rewarding traders; it’s about restoring fairness for long-term holders who missed the migration window for legitimate reasons.
We should focus on solutions that strengthen trust and inclusivity in the dYdX ecosystem, not personal accusations.
Hoang Nguyen Anh - A long-term dYdX holder and supporter since 2023
Is it possible to simply distribute ethDYDX → DYDX based on balances at the time the bridge was closed? That’s a fair and transparent approach, and I support it. Otherwise, I see potential sell pressure from people who had the opportunity to buy tokens at 5 cents — which isn’t in the best interest of the other 95% of DYDX holders. I’m against simply reopening the bridge without taking this factor into account.
We have repeatedly stated that we are satisfied with any method of migration. I reiterate that the bridge will not create seller pressure, as there is no liquidity (read1, read2). Pressure is created by the actions of the market maker, as in the example of 10/10/2025, when the price fell by almost half.
And don’t confuse the terms — 95% of holders don’t exist. There are 95% of coins in the native network and ~5% in ERC-20, which equals 45K holders, which in quantitative terms is most likely the majority.
As scheduled, today on the 28th the text proposal is on-chain for voting
Hello everyone,
Closing the bridge without broad, repeated communication carries long term reputational costs, the scale of loss is real. For many holders, the effective loss equals 100 percent of their self custodied investment, assets cannot be migrated or deposited to exchanges, and residual on chain liquidity implies a huge haircut versus the active DYDX market, which is economically indistinguishable from a total loss.
Reopening is a reversible operational step, not a security change, community discussions already note that chain security and validator safety are unaffected, the goal is simply to restore the previously available migration path.
Returning access to self custodied funds is the only correct path for an open and fair project, it addresses a documented, large scale impact, reduces ongoing reputational drag, and does so without adding risk.
I kindly ask validators to participate in the vote and support reopening the bridge for a time bounded window, this is the pragmatic way to close the issue and reinforce trust in the ecosystem.
Best regards,
ethDYDX holder