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

Proposals
97

Thanks for the response. Two quick points.

1. “Toxic and destabilising”. Could you please cite specific lines. Without examples this is just a label. Accusing without evidence shifts the burden of proof and becomes a bare assertion. I’m aiming to keep my posts factual and polite.

2. “Coordinated Telegram, secret buying, profit scheme”. This reads like a conspiracy narrative. It relies on:

  • Straw man, replacing the proposal to restore access with a story about “coordinators”,
  • Guilt by association, implying that if some people chat or trade, the whole proposal is illegitimate,
  • Non sequitur, even if someone buys in a thin market, it does not follow that reopening is harmful. In practice, ethDYDX liquidity is minimal, entry has high slippage and timing risk, and any selling would occur later on the main DYDX market, where depth is much greater. Reopening fixes the pricing disconnect, it does not create new sell pressure.

If there’s appetite to “investigate” side topics, that can happen in a separate thread. This vote is simply about restoring users’ lawful access to their own funds. ( I will keep repeating, because we should stay focused on the actual subject instead of drifting into the fog of emotional accusations). Technical parameters, pacing, or any safeguards can be discussed and, if needed, voted on next.

98

That’s quite a heavy claim built entirely on pattern association rather than facts. Comparing this proposal to “DAO takeovers” is a false analogy there’s no treasury redirection, no governance hijack, and no concentration of power involved. The goal is simply to restore users’ rightful access to funds that were locked after a bridge shutdown.

Bringing in theories about secret coordination shifts the discussion away from verifiable facts into speculation. This is a conspiracy framing fallacy - assuming hidden motives instead of addressing the clear and transparent intent of the proposal.

We should stay focused on the real issue, which is functional access to assets that belong to users. Everything else: Telegram chats, assumptions about motives, or imagined “takeovers” are distractions that don’t help reach a fair and practical solution.

99

Thanks to the efforts of the Cosmic Validator Team.
We believe that the dYdX community’s decision is the most correct and best one for the 41.7m ethDYDX.

100

Good day, dear friends and the dYdX Foundation team,

I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail and that you will decide to reopen the bridge so the community does not suffer financial losses.

I have been a long-term investor in your project and hold dYdX tokens worth approximately $1,000,000. At the moment, all my assets are locked in the Ethereum network, and I am unable to perform any actions with them.

I truly hope that the bridge will be reopened and that the community will appreciate your decision, recognizing dYdX as one of the most progressive and respected teams in the blockchain world.

As an example, you may look at Polygon (MATIC) — their bridges continue to operate smoothly, allowing users to freely transfer assets between networks without any restrictions.

105

I want to address a serious and still unresolved issue that directly affects me and many other long-term DYDX supporters.

I am an early DYDX investor and have held my tokens on Ethereum since the early days of the project. Unfortunately, due to serious health issues, I was unable to monitor every governance update or participate in discussions about the bridge closure. By the time I recovered and returned to the project, the migration window had already ended — leaving my ERC-20 DYDX tokens completely unusable.

At the time of purchase, no one mentioned or warned that my assets could become worthless if I missed a future migration, especially on a trusted network like Ethereum. I invested in good faith, believing my tokens would always retain value or at least have a fair conversion path if the project moved to another chain.

Now my tokens cannot be swapped, deposited, or migrated — they are effectively frozen. It is deeply concerning that such decisions were made and approved by a few validators or large holders who may not have any incentive to support smaller investors like me. It raises fundamental questions about fairness and governance transparency.

I also read comments suggesting that some people might buy these “worthless” tokens now at a very low price and later profit if migration reopens. But why should the system work like this — against honest early supporters like me, who already invested when the project was just growing? Why should I be forced to sell my tokens for nothing, so that someone else can later profit from my loss? This dynamic is completely unfair and undermines the principles of equality and integrity in decentralized finance.

I sincerely appreciate that this forum exists and that some members of the team have responded, but this issue is far from solved. We are talking about a situation where early supporters, through no fault of their own, lost access to their assets. That should not be acceptable in any legitimate decentralized project.

First and foremost, I kindly ask the team to help me personally migrate my ERC-20 DYDX tokens to the new chain, so that I can recover access to what I rightfully own. Beyond that, I strongly urge the community to discuss broader solutions — whether reopening the bridge temporarily, creating an alternative migration contract, or offering fair liquidity support.

If this situation continues without resolution, I believe it may need to be escalated to a higher level involving legal and regulatory review, because the question of asset rights and investor protection goes beyond a single technical decision.

I still hope for a fair and constructive response from the dYdX Foundation and the team. Please take this issue seriously — not only for me, but for the integrity of the entire ecosystem.

108

Hello dYdX Community and validators,

I would like to share my perspective as an affected long-term holder.

I currently hold 16,240 ethDYDX. I am fully prepared to verify ownership on-chain, either by signing a message or through a nominal self-transfer. I invested in dYdX because of its strong fundamentals, the team’s credibility, and the project’s unique position in decentralized derivatives. My strategy has always been long term, over a 5 to 10 year horizon. I did not intend to actively trade the token. I simply held it with conviction.

That is exactly why I find myself in this situation today. There was no direct notification, no exchange banners, no wallet alerts, no press coverage that reached me, and no migration timeline presented to me outside of developer community channels and this forum. I am a concrete example of the type of holder who strengthened the project by holding, yet ended up unintentionally excluded from the chain migration.

This should not result in a permanent loss of access. The absence of forum activity should not be treated as negligence severe enough to justify irreversible restriction of rightful assets. A token that can no longer move, stake, or participate in governance has lost its core property: utility.

This is not a request for special treatment. This is a request for equal access to the chain everyone else has migrated to.

Addressing concerns raised by others

• Security risk concerns

Re-enabling the bridge does not weaken L1 security if executed with clear limits. A capped supply corresponding only to pre-existing ethDYDX eliminates inflation or staking dilution. A validator-approved snapshot can prevent attempts to farm arbitrage in DeFi pools.

• Claims that “only a few care”

There are more than 45,000 unmigrated addresses on record. It is expected that many holders are silent until they realize they are locked out. Silence does not mean consent to loss. The existence of this proposal proves the need.

• Claims of improper incentives

Re-opening the bridge corrects a governance oversight rather than creating a new reward. No one is asking for airdrops or additional benefits. Only the ability to exercise the rights that come with ownership.

• Validator change of vote

A validator updating their position to correct a mistake is responsible governance. The original bridge closure contained explicit language that it may be revisited if required by the community. This proposal fulfils exactly that condition.

A fair and values-aligned decision

dYdX has thrived because of a reputation for fairness and engineering excellence. Excluding a cohort of long-term supporters due to a communication gap would conflict with that identity and may compromise future trust in governance decisions.

This vote is not only about tokens. It is about reinforcing confidence in dYdX as a community-led L1 that respects every stakeholder.

I remain fully aligned with the project’s future. I want to participate. I want to stake. I want to contribute to governance rather than be permanently sidelined because I did not follow the forum closely enough during a specific window.

I respectfully ask validators to support this proposal so that every real holder can continue with the project we believed in from the start.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

110 
Dear dYdX community.

I hold approximately 1,300 dYdX tokens on the Ethereum network and am willing to provide information for verification.

I haven't been following the migration information; I was simply a coin holder.

I hope they make the right and informed decision regarding opening the bridge. I sincerely hope the dYdX community will support small, diverse investors.
112

We are eagerly waiting for your decision to open the bridge. We hope for common sense.

115

Dear Dydx project validators, a vote on the migration of tokens stuck in the ERC20 network will take place on October 28th. I would like to draw your attention to the moral aspect of this issue using my own experience. For an entire year, I was seriously ill, underwent surgery, and underwent a lengthy recovery. I was physically unable to follow the project’s news. This situation came as a complete surprise and a real challenge for me. I am sure there are many similar situations, and each of us has our own story, no less dramatic. We all find ourselves in a difficult situation and need your support. It is important to remember that behind every token are real, living people. Opening the bridge is not only a technical solution; it is, first and foremost, an opportunity to restore hope and faith in the project to us and other investors. An honest and fair approach to business and concern for investors must be at the forefront. By supporting the opening of the bridge, validators not only demonstrate a commitment to ethical standards but also strengthen trust in the project. This will create a positive image of Dydx as a company that cares about its investors and is ready to solve their problems. I urge you to support the opening of the bridge and give those in difficult situations the opportunity to recover their funds. This is not just a step forward, but also an important act of support and solidarity with the entire crypto community.

116

Hello everyone,

I think validators should make the right choice and vote for opening the bridge because its matter of reputation of DYDX team, this case gives the opportunity for other crypto projects make the same thing and will have a bad effect on the entire crypto industry, don’t make a big mistake

With respect, DYDX token holder

117

Guys, with this DYDX price trend (-18% from today’s highs), you’ll soon be able to swap your ethDYDX 1:1 at 5 cents - just wait for it
0.05 cents is already closer than 0.6 last month

118

Why don’t more people vote?

Screenshot 2025-10-30 at 8.24.01 PM
Screenshot 2025-10-30 at 8.24.01 PM1920×1093 94.9 KB

119

Very disappointed with the vote. As everyone can see, most validators don’t care who lost and how much of their funds. This vote is once again proof that this fraudulent scheme was made by prior collusion.

120

Thankfully this social engineering s-c-a-m will be over soon.

Hopefully y’all will go get jobs now.

I love how the new accounts have made their user info private after I called out your synergistic local time stamps.

The point of failure in decentralization and DAO’s is that we allow hostile takeovers by malicious actors who pose as absent minded victims.

121

Dear friends, DYDX holders and network validators,

Let’s imagine a situation. A lot of depositors put their money in a bank, but the bank didn’t send them any letters — it just made a small announcement in a local newspaper saying that everyone must submit their personal information in writing, otherwise they would never get their money back.

Do you think all depositors would manage to do that in time? Some might be sick, some traveling, some simply trusting that such a thing couldn’t happen!

Can you imagine something like this happening in a traditional banking system — people losing their deposits just because of some technicality?

So why, as supporters of decentralized finance, are we allowing such a situation to happen? I always thought we wanted to make the world better!

122

Why Should Others Decide What Happens to My Assets?

I’ve been thinking more about the governance process around this issue, and I honestly don’t understand how it’s considered fair. Why should I have to watch other people vote on what happens to my money?

The whole idea of decentralization was supposed to protect individual ownership — not to let a handful of validators or large holders decide the fate of everyone else’s assets. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here. Those who already migrated and hold the new DYDX have no motivation to support ERC-20 holders; they already got what they wanted. So their votes carry full weight, while the people who are actually affected have zero say.

When I bought my tokens, nobody said that one day a group of others would get to vote on whether I could still use them or not. That’s not decentralization — that’s a system where your rights depend on someone else’s financial interests. It overwrites the very concept of ownership.

To put it simply — imagine I decide to buy a billion DYDX tokens. From that moment on, I can vote only for what benefits me and block any proposal that doesn’t. How is that fair to everyone else? Governance in this form becomes an instrument of control, not representation. The more you hold, the more power you have — and that’s the opposite of what decentralized finance was meant to be.

How can a project that promotes fairness and transparency justify this kind of imbalance? The governance structure should exist to represent everyone, not to silence those who lost access to their investments.

This is not just a technical issue — it’s an ethical one. Decisions that affect people’s money should never be made by those who have nothing to lose from the outcome.

123

I honestly bought tokens two years ago at $2.50-$3, and I don’t understand your gloating and joy at seeing people lose millions. If only 4% of the tokens are locked up, then even if someone buys them ALL, is it possible to conduct a hostile takeover with just 4% of the tokens? Seriously?