In the distant future, Quantum Computers will be able to break Bitcoin cryptography, and funds in Bitcoin addresses will be vulnerable to hackers. Hopefully, years before that becomes true, the Bitcoin network will move to a Quantum-Resistant network, and when that happens, people will have to migrate their Bitcoins to the new, secure network. This is inevitable given the pace of technology in the Quantum space. Those who don’t migrate within a certain time frame will not be allowed to after the end of the migration window, because it is necessary to stop hackers from stealing large amounts of idle Bitcoins like Satoshi’s stash.
Not too far off from what happened here. the eth-DYDX token has ZERO utility, and does NOT secure the new dYdX Chain. If very little supply is bridged, then very little will secure the TVL of the chain (currently over $200 million USDC is secured by ~250mil staked dydx tokens (~$72mil) which is woefully already very low, these staked tokens vote on and against proposals that can literally ‘transfer’ USDC from one address to another just like this was just done to fund the DODGERSWIN insurance fund and also compensate users impacted by Oct 10 outage). Imagine only 1 mil are migrated, then someone can buy a larger amount, pass ridiculous proposals to ‘send me all the moneyz’ and vote Yes and passes it. Therefore, when the security of a new chain is dependent on the amount of migrated tokens, it is required to force migration within a certain time frame. People had twenty months to bridge (Nov 2023 to June 2025), the dYdX X account posted 15 times in the last 2 months about the bridge imminent closure. The Foundation also worked diligently with all major exchanges which led to unprecedented 96% of coins bridged over. People vote No not because they find joy in doing so, but to express their opinion that 20 months is sufficient time, and past governance decisions are final. People who deliberately self-custody take on additional responsibility to keep up with small projects that need to be nimble, otherwise they should have left their coins on the exchange to handle it for them
This proposal appears headed to Failure with a simple No majority. In the future, I believe any future proposals similar to this one will get ‘Veto’ vote rather than No, which will cause the proposer to lose their 2000 dydx deposit.
I will also point out a simple fact. Validators on dYdX truly do it for the Love of the Game. A top validator like Polkachu makes ~$400 per month, probably/almost certainly operating at a loss. Enabling the weth-ETH bridge will require them to run additional Ethereum-node which can cost $1-3k per month for compute, storage, and network egress. Over 12 month period, that would mean tens of thousands of dollars in additional costs that is not compensated due to the low rewards paid to stakers. Many validators simply voted along economic principle.
@Cosmic_Validator I’m wondering, what are your spendings for dYdX node maintenance vs benefits? It will be helpful if you can share such info (you can DM me, if you don’t want to post it here)
I held the dYdX token in its original ERC-20 form on the Ethereum blockchain, the network on which the token was initially issued and promoted.
If the project doesn’t allow me to transfer my tokens to native chain, there will be a lawsuit. Stop deleting this message.
The voting process is not fair. Totally agree with a person above: “Why Should Others Decide What Happens to My Assets?”
I was just watching how other people vote against this proposal because they have migrated their tokens while others didn’t.
I am not surprised by the results.
I held the dYdX token in its original ERC-20 form on the Ethereum blockchain — the same network where the token was initially issued, listed, and promoted.
If the project continues to provide no official way for ERC-20 holders to migrate to the native chain, it shows a lack of fairness and responsibility to the earliest supporters of dYdX.
The voting process was not fair. I completely agree with the person who said: “Why should others decide what happens to my assets?”
It’s clear that those who already migrated had a strong incentive to vote against keeping the bridge open, while others who didn’t migrate yet were left without representation.
This outcome was predictable — and it does not reflect a truly decentralized or inclusive governance model.
I urge the dYdX team and community to reconsider this decision and open a new, limited migration window to support ERC-20 holders who were left behind.
Fairness and transparency should always come before technical convenience.
I hold 10,000 DYDX tokens on Ethereum. I staked my tokens when DYDX first introduced staking, at a time when the token price was $10, so my holding cost is quite high. Unfortunately, I missed the DYDX network migration and suffered losses to my assets as a result. I support restarting the cross-chain bridge.
I’m a holder, and I have a large number of dYdX coins. I couldn’t even imagine that leaving my coins unattended for a long time might result in their disappearance. I’m asking you to open the bridge. Why don’t you think about the people who have believed in you and held onto their coins for years?
If you’re not a s-c-a-m-m-e-r, be responsible with where your money goes. Not logging on to forums, Twitter for two years is malpractice and you probably deserve to lose money.
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a long-time supporter and early holder of dYdX. I invested in and held ethDYDX for more than two years, believing in the long-term vision of the project. Unfortunately, due to work obligations, I missed the governance proposal six months ago regarding the shutdown of the Ethereum bridge.
As a result, all of my ethDYDX—along with approximately 41.7 million other tokens on Ethereum—has effectively become frozen. Liquidity for ERC-20 DYDX has disappeared across DEXs and CEXs, and deposits have been disabled. For me personally, the tokens I have held and supported for years are now essentially unusable and close to worthless, despite still representing legitimate ownership.
I fully understand that the bridge closure was done for security and technical reasons, and I respect the community’s decision. However, I kindly ask the Foundation and the community to reconsider re-opening the ethDYDX → DYDX bridge temporarily, even for a limited period (e.g., several months), to allow remaining holders to migrate.
Re-opening the bridge would:
Restore fairness and protect long-time supporters who were unintentionally left behind
Reduce reputational damage within the community
Require no changes to network security
I am not requesting any special treatment—only the opportunity to migrate my legitimately owned tokens to the dYdX Chain, as originally intended.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I sincerely hope the Foundation and community can revisit this issue and work toward a solution that supports all early contributors.
We are closing this thread and will delete any further comments on the closure of the bridge.
dYdX Token Holders have in separate proposals 1st agreed to the closure of the bridge and 2nd confirmed this decision after hearing the argumentation of tokenholders who did not bridge their DYDX in time, while the closure and timeline was public knowledge for more than six months. Furthermore multiple calls to attention on different platforms, by different ecosystem participants have been made.
We want to reduce the noise in the forum, and focus on building the future of dYdX and DYDX.