Andrei Sobolev ladies and gentlemen
"A 1,764 USDC transaction – is this a joke?
Whoever it is, I don’t think any reader of this DRC cares about someone buying $1,764 worth of useless tokens on the DEX when the real issue is restoring access to 42M DYDX (~$15,000,000) that have been permanently lost to their owners.
Please don’t interfere with our community of holders DYDX ERC-20 regaining access to their rightful funds. If you have a suggestion for restricting access to tokens purchased on the DEX from migration, please submit a detailed proposal in this DRC: suggest options such as a snapshot or blocking individual wallets that purchased tokens on the DEX after the bridge was closed, but don’t spam such an important feed with pointless messages."
How do I vote? Could you please tell me how to vote?
Hey there! I wanted to share some info for anyone who might be unsure about how to vote, just like I was. Voting will be open until November 1st, 2025, at 14:06:09, so we don’t have a lot of time! If you want to have your voice heard on dYdX governance proposals, like Proposal #302, which is about re-enabling support for the wethDYDX Smart Contract (the Bridge) on the dYdX Chain for 12 months, here’s a simple guide on how to vote:
-
Ensure you have DYDX tokens on the dYdX Chain or purchase some.
-
Stake your DYDX tokens using the Keplr browser extension. keplr browser extension
-
Locate the correct proposal here: text proposal is on-chain for voting
-
Connect your wallet.
-
Cast your vote.
Absolutely not good (whoever made this). And there will be more of these if the proposal passes.
I’m good with enabling support for the bridge for the legit owners. But without means like a snapshot I can’t vote YES for the current proposal.
My suggestion is to stop current voting, do more preparatory work and perform voting again.
Buying cheap ethDYDX on a thin market is not a reason to keep the system broken, it is a side effect of the closed bridge, not the cause. Reopening restores normal functionality, security is unaffected, fairness is restored.
What is wrong with the “no reopen because buyers” stance:
- Cause and effect reversed, distressed pricing and arbitrage exist because the bridge is closed, not the other way around.
- False equivalence, late speculative entries are not the same as long term self-custodied holdings.
- Punishing-the-victim logic, keeping the block to “teach speculators a lesson” harms good-faith holders.
- Status quo bias, preserving a broken state for emotional reasons prolongs distortion and reputational drag.
- Strawman framing, reopening is not a bailout, it simply restores convertibility and market integrity.
- Thin-market math misunderstood, to accumulate size in illiquid pools buyers push the price against themselves, average entry cost jumps due to slippage and spreads, even if exit later is via the bridge into a deeper market the expected return is bounded by that high entry basis, fees, time risk, there’s no free lunch.
Please support reopening the bridge for a time-bounded window, it is the pragmatic way to fix the distortion, restore fairness, and move forward.
There’s nothing wrong with buying something on the open market, but the fact that it’s being done by someone who organized this whole hype campaign raises red flags for me.
Here are some facts:
-
A coordinated campaign with new accounts on the forum all registered around the same dates.
-
A closed Telegram group where everything is being coordinated, and it’s not open for auditing.
-
Your KOL, the main coordinator, is buying tokens off the market for 5-6 cents. Where do you think those tokens will go once the bridge opens? What will happen to the token price?
-
Not a single publicly verified wallet (by any means).
I get that there may be real victims here, but this manipulative campaign is discrediting everything.
As I said earlier, I support some sort of compromise for opening the bridge based on a snapshot.
This is possible manually but tedious. The method was mentioned by @lawrencechiu and @RealVovochka where the user can sign an empty tx to confirm their Ethereum wallet. dYdX support team can cross check if their address was holding ethDYDX on the snapshot before the July vote, and if so, they can provide dYdX Chain address to get DYDX.
Based on what I see, it’s possible to send tokens from any module to any wallet on dYdX Chain (like from community treasury) with governance proposal, but one of you will need to organize this.
I am an ERC-20 DYDX holder, and to be honest, I didn’t even know about this issue until I came across an article titled “DYDX Bridge Closure: Users Don’t Know What to Do” in a large Telegram channel. That channel has over 2.8 million subscribers, so I easily found the group of affected users and joined it.
When you say the group is “closed” — that’s simply not true. It’s open and accessible through an invitation link that anyone can find. You just did not even check it before making your assert. There’s nothing wrong with people coming together to solve a common problem.
And please, don’t downplay the scale of the situation — there are around 45,000 wallets that didn’t cross the bridge. That’s tens of thousands of real users. Your claims about “coordinated bots” only show a complete misunderstanding of what’s actually happening — these are real people who lost access to their assets.
As was already mentioned earlier, the news about ERC-20 DYDX holders who don’t know what to do spread everywhere, across all major crypto channels, precisely because people united and started reaching out to every possible media outlet to fix this problem.
I believe the goal should be to find a real and fair solution for all affected holders, not to highlight a few wallets via screenshots just to give them access to bridge tokens.
As I mentioned before, I personally remember how some people panicked and tried to move their tokens — but the ERC-20 smart contract simply didn’t work anymore. What should those people do?
Instead of posting unfounded accusations about a situation you clearly don’t understand, try offering constructive ideas that are fair to everyone.
And if you have nothing new to add — please stop spamming this proposal with repetitive, baseless comments.
I think the logic here is somewhat flawed. By definition, every token holder who did not bridge is de facto a “real victim”, if one wishes to use that term to describe those affected by the bridge closure. On-chain data clearly shows that this group is significant in size, and that alone should suffice to demonstrate that there are legitimate concerns and real users impacted.
As for the suggestion of a “coordinated campaign,” I do not really see why that would be problematic. In practice, this is precisely how decentralized governance works (stakeholders self-organize, coordinate discussions, and collectively express views on matters that affect them…)
Regarding the observation that many accounts were created around the same time, that also seems quite natural given that the issue only arose after the bridge was closed. It is expected that users will begin to engage or create governance-linked wallets once the matter becomes relevant.
For clarity, I have no personal interest in whether the bridge is ultimately reopened or not. The views expressed here represent my own and should not be interpreted as reflecting any organization or group.
-
“Coordinated campaign with new accounts”
Of course many people appeared at once, because they only found out about the issue after it was mentioned publicly, to a large audience. That’s not manipulation, it’s a normal reaction to poor communication. The campaign didn’t appear out of nowhere, it’s the result of the team’s failure to inform users before closing the bridge. Calling it “coordination” is just a way to shift blame instead of fixing the mistake. -
“Closed Telegram group”
This isn’t true. The group is open, anyone can join and read the messages, all links are public. You can check it yourself. The claim that something is “coordinated in secret” is made up and serves only to discredit people who are simply talking to each other. It’s a normal community chat, not a secret organization. -
“A KOL buying tokens at 5–6 cents”
This is personal bias, not logic. Focusing on one person instead of the real problem is a distraction. And while adressing me calling someone “your KOL” is bias, no one is my KOL, I am speaking for myself. Anyone in crypto is free to buy what they want. Buying in such illiquid markets has high slippage and real financial risk, so it’s hardly the “easy profit” some imagine. And economically, these trades can’t affect the deep, liquid DYDX market, reopening the bridge won’t hurt DYDX token, it will simply fix the disconnect and restore fair market alignment. But even if someone trades, that doesn’t change the fact that many people lost access to their own funds. That’s what matters. -
“No publicly verified wallets”
This argument doesn’t make sense. In DeFi, ownership is already verified on-chain. Forcing people to expose their wallets or link them to their real identities goes against the basic crypto principles of privacy and security. It’s not evidence of bad faith, it’s simply how decentralized systems work. This forum has never required wallet verification for any discussion throughout its entire existence, and it still doesn’t today. -
“Manipulative campaign”
That’s just a label someone made up. It’s another example of arguing with an imaginary version of reality instead of the facts. Real people lost access to their tokens, they talk to each other, share information, and want a solution. That’s not manipulation, that’s what any healthy community does. Calling it “manipulative” is just a way to dismiss a real problem without addressing it.
All of these claims have the same flaw - they focus on suspicions, labels, and personalities instead of the actual issue. It’s easier to accuse people of “coordinating” than to admit the real mistake, which was closing the bridge without proper communication. None of these arguments disprove the simple truth that the bridge can be safely reopened, the process is reversible, and it restores fairness.
Temporarily reopening the bridge isn’t a campaign or a protest, it’s a practical fix to a technical and reputational problem. It brings things back to normal, respects the principles of decentralization, and helps the ecosystem move forward.
Какая тебе разница, кто и когда купил. Ты же сам писал что не являешься держателем монет DYDX, шуму поднял больше чем люди которые остались со своими бесплатными монетами. Я не понимаю зачем так жопу рвать? Если бы я не был запертым держателем, мне бы вообще плевать было на этот форум и кто по чем монету купит и какие у них схемы.
I want to emphasize that this vote is only about reopening the bridge, meaning restoring users’ legitimate access to their own funds. Nothing more, nothing less.
All technical details and implementation specifics can be reviewed, discussed, and voted on separately if needed. This vote does not mean that the bridge will automatically open tomorrow, it simply expresses community support for restoring access.
Just like the bridge was closed through multiple structured governance steps, the reopening can follow the same transparent, staged process.
I kindly ask validators to support the users who lost lawful access to their assets and to express that support in this vote.
Personal opinion.
Agree with @RealVovochka @lawrencechiu @staza this appears to be a coordinated effort by a group of individuals seeking to undermine governance in a toxic and destabilising manner. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Before proceeding with any blanket action, there should be a clear and transparent method for identifying the relevant accounts, if such identification is to take place at all.
Could you please specify what exactly was considered toxic in my messages, for example?
I’m only trying to rely on logic, facts, and calm, reasoned arguments.
This will affect the price of existing tokenholders not in terms that supply will grow but because those wallets will dump immediately
thats bs, some people are posting their names or fake names here. Confirming the ownership of the wallet doesnt reveal any personal information. you can just sign the message with the text “ I support the reopening” or whatever. Thats it.
This isn’t specific to your message. It’s specific to the proposal, and those involved with coordinated telegram messaging that’s both been publicly and privately shared, and privately buying up the ethDYDX market in an attempt to profit if this was to reopen.
I’d hope that legitimate validators see this proposal for what it is, and encourage a more thorough and detailed investigation before considering further action.
The main issue here is not arbitrage but restoring users’ access to their own funds.
If some participants or validators believe arbitrage mechanisms need to be discussed, that can easily be done in a separate thread.
This vote is only about reopening the bridge, the technical parameters and potential mitigation measures can always be defined and approved later through another governance vote, just as it was done when the bridge was originally closed.
It’s unfortunate you had that experience, but your message mostly shows personal frustration, not anything related to the actual proposal. Someone banned you from a Telegram group and you’re upset, that’s understandable, but it has nothing to do with thousands of independent users who lost access to their funds.
Blaming or trying to “punish” everyone involved in the bridge discussion because of a personal disagreement is a clear attribution error - mixing individual interactions with a systemic issue. The topic here isn’t about groups or moderators, it’s about restoring rightful access to users’ assets.
For clarity, I have no connection to that group and can’t speak for them. My focus here is on the facts and on finding a fair solution for everyone affected.
Last input before I leave this thread…
Over the past 3-4 years, several DAOs have succumbed to well-orchestrated takeover attempts where a small group of individuals with sufficient influence, often covertly, aim to hijack decision-making and redirect treasury or protocol resources for personal gain.
This proposal displays the classic features of this and the pattern is very familiar: tokens are quietly acquired in the open markets (ethDYDX), proposals are orchestrated privately in telegram groups (dYdX hostages), and governance mobilised not for collective benefit, but for profit or dominance.
Before proceeding with any blanket openings or changes, the dYdX community should first ensure that there is a clear and transparent process to identify and assess ethDYDX account activity, as described by @lawrencechiu @RealVovochka and others.