Skip to content

Memo: Rescue Function #50

Open
Open
Memo: Rescue Function#50

Description

@aggre
aggre
opened on Mar 1, 2021

This issue is a draft DIP memo and will be used to create a DIP later, although it is not accompanied by sufficient information.

Activity

  1. aggre commented on Mar 1, 2021

    @aggre
    aggre
    on Mar 1, 2021
    MemberAuthor

    Memo: https://discord.com/channels/547215761341546497/722710414240251984/815846692918132777

    There is currently no way to get back DEV sent directly to the contract. Technically, it is possible to add a rescue function that will only work upon the contract owner's transaction (the author of vyper). I am aware of this issue, but it is not part of the development plan yet. I have added a memo to draft a DIP at a later date. Thank you!

  2. Toy9cito commented on Apr 12, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 12, 2021

    Good morning I I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this I just wanted to inform you that I am one of those people that accidentally sent my Dev tokens to this address to the dev team instead of to the staking pool could you please update me on when this will be able to get my tokens back?

    20210407_050553
    20210407_050546

  3. aggre commented on Apr 15, 2021

    @aggre
    aggre
    on Apr 15, 2021
    MemberAuthor

    Dev Protocol can solve this issue by adding the following function to Lockup.sol.

    function rescue(address _property, uint256 _amount, uint256 _recipient) external {
  IProperty property = IProperty(_property);
  require(msg.sender == property.author(), "not author");

  uint256 totalLocked = getStoragePropertyValue(_property);
  uint256 balance = IERC20(config().token()).balanceOf(_property);
  require(balance.sub(_amount) >= totalLocked, "no rescueable balance");
  
  property.withdraw(_recipient, _amount);
}

    However, only the Property token author can do this. This means that the rescuee must contact the author to explain his own incorrect transfer.

    @Akira-Taniguchi Do you have a better idea?

  4. Akira-Taniguchi commented on Apr 15, 2021

    @Akira-Taniguchi
    Akira-Taniguchi
    on Apr 15, 2021
    Member

    If we leave it to the PROPERTY AUTHOR, accidents will occur, so I suggest the following procedure.

    1.Ask Goxer to run the Lockup.rescue function.
    　The only argument to Lockup.rescue is the Property address. It sends all differences between the DEV token balance held by the Property contract and the actual staking value to a specific wallet.
    　The Lockup.rescue function can be executed by anyone.
    　Of course, the assumption here is that the DEV token is executed by someone who has sent it in error.

    2.Goxer will send etherscan transaction information at the time of the miscommunication to the management.

    3.The operation will check it and figure out the address and the amount of tokens to be returned based on the transaction information in etherscan.

    4.The operation executes the approve function, and Goxer executes the transferFrom.

    Of course, this operation will be executed by the person with the role after it is made into a DAO.

  5. Toy9cito commented on Apr 15, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 15, 2021

    that sounds very promising you guys are just amazing and unique thank god for your great minds the world cant thank you enough

  6. aggre commented on Apr 16, 2021

    @aggre
    aggre
    on Apr 16, 2021
    MemberAuthor

    Of course, this operation will be executed by the person with the role after it is made into a DAO.

    @Akira-Taniguchi That operation is likely to not working once the transition to DAO is complete. Perhaps the operators need an incentive.

    How about staking the rescued tokens into the Property Tokens instead of returning them to the goxer's wallet? In that case, the author also has an incentive.

    @Toy9cito Do you want to stake your rescued tokens right away?

  7. Akira-Taniguchi commented on Apr 16, 2021

    @Akira-Taniguchi
    Akira-Taniguchi
    on Apr 16, 2021
    Member

    How about staking the rescued tokens into the Property Tokens instead of returning them to the goxer's wallet? In that case, the author also has an incentive.

    This is a good idea.

    　・We need to create a new lockup function to maintain internal consistency.
    　・we need to create such as account_lockup table record.

    I think this is Issue.

    @aggre

  8. Toy9cito commented on Apr 16, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 16, 2021 via email

  9. Toy9cito commented on Apr 16, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 16, 2021 via email

  10. Toy9cito commented on Apr 16, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 16, 2021 via email

  11. aggre commented on Apr 17, 2021

    @aggre
    aggre
    on Apr 17, 2021
    MemberAuthor

    @Toy9cito I've confused you because some explanations were missing. "Property" is a tokenized asset (OSS). Staking usually requires the Deposit transaction. However, some people send DEV tokens directly to a Property (by mistake). There are three proposals as a remedy for that.

    1. Contact the Property author from you, and you will get back the DEV tokens by a transaction by the Property author. (DEV tokens will be back in your wallet. But the Property author has no incentive to pay for gas fees.)
    2. Contact the Property author from you, and you will start staking on the Property by a transaction by the Property author. (DEV tokens are treated as if your staking was done from this operation. The Property author has an incentive to pay for gas fees.)
    3. Move all fraudulently sent DEV tokens to a temporary rescue pool and return them to you by an administrator operation. (DEV tokens will be back in your wallet)

    If your goal is to stake property instead of regaining DEV, plan 2 will achieve that with the fewest steps. So I asked you.

  12. Toy9cito commented on Apr 17, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 17, 2021 via email

  13. aggre commented on Apr 19, 2021

    @aggre
    aggre
    on Apr 19, 2021
    MemberAuthor

    @Toy9cito It will be a lot difficult to get it back by yourself, and its implementation will not be realistic. Because smart contracts do not know about the DEV tokens you have transferred in the past (although I can found the transaction that you sent DEV in Etherscan). But Plan 3 is the plan that most closely matches your needs.

    @Akira-Taniguchi With Merkle Distributor, self-claiming rescue for a large number of goxers may be possible. (But it requires to set up by core maintainers in advance) On the other hand, implementing with Merkle Distributor also requires building a UI for claiming, so it might be a good idea to start with temporary support from the core maintainers. In short, Plan 3.

    Move all fraudulently sent DEV tokens to a temporary rescue pool and return them to you by an administrator operation. (DEV tokens will be back in your wallet)

  14. Toy9cito commented on Apr 19, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 19, 2021 via email

  15. Akira-Taniguchi commented on Apr 20, 2021

    @Akira-Taniguchi
    Akira-Taniguchi
    on Apr 20, 2021
    Member

    @aggre

    Yes, I think proposal 3 is a good idea.
    And let's make it in a way that the delegated operator will handle it when it is DAO.

  16. Akira-Taniguchi commented on Apr 20, 2021

    @Akira-Taniguchi
    Akira-Taniguchi
    on Apr 20, 2021
    Member

    Technically it is easy, but what about the cost of gas?
    For example, the operator should not have to pay for a large amount of gas to rescue 1DEV.

    And the cost of the work should be received in advance.

    Here is a suggestion

    1.Have the operator pay 1ether in advance.
    　The breakdown is the cost of gas plus the cost of work.

    2.Collect the gas fee to the property->pool contract at market price.
    　The pool contract should have a function that allows users to withdraw DEV tokens. When the user withdraws the DEV token, he pays for the gas himself.

    Personally, I think it's idea 1.

    @aggre

  17. Toy9cito commented on Apr 20, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 20, 2021 via email

  18. Toy9cito commented on Apr 20, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 20, 2021 via email

  19. Akira-Taniguchi commented on Apr 20, 2021

    @Akira-Taniguchi
    Akira-Taniguchi
    on Apr 20, 2021
    Member

    Please wait a little longer as we are discussing the flow.
    The operator will probably be either @aggre or @Akira-Taniguchi.

    @Toy9cito

  20. vaanguard1 commented on Apr 21, 2021

    @vaanguard1
    vaanguard1
    on Apr 21, 2021

    Hey everyone, it’s great hearing discussion on this matter.

    0x5caf454ba92e6f2c929df14667ee360ed9fd5b26

    ^ I staked my dev tokens on stakes.social to this address (Vyperlang)

    Would like to ask if there is any updates on my case yet? And should I provide the full info or link from etherscan.io? (If additional verification of my statement is required)

    thank you kindly,
    -eleon66

    This issue is a draft DIP memo and will be used to create a DIP later, although it is not accompanied by sufficient information.

  21. Akira-Taniguchi commented on Apr 21, 2021

    @Akira-Taniguchi
    Akira-Taniguchi
    on Apr 21, 2021
    Member

    Thank you for contacting me.
    I'm still in the process of designing the flow, so I'll contact you via Discord or something when everything is done.

    @vaanguard1

  22. Toy9cito commented on Apr 21, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 21, 2021

    thanks for also joining us hwere to try to help all of us here that unfortunately we sent out tokens to the contract instead of to stake our favorite project..these guys have been bery helpfull with trying to come up for a solution to get our coins back and pay for gas to have them sent back to our account,the great guys that have been helping me are The operator will probably be either @aggre or @Akira-Taniguchi.

  23. vaanguard1 commented on Apr 22, 2021

    @vaanguard1
    vaanguard1
    on Apr 22, 2021

    Yea man glad that it’s being looked into =)

    thanks all

  24. Toy9cito commented on Apr 29, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Apr 29, 2021 via email

  25. Toy9cito commented on May 8, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on May 8, 2021

    Yea man glad that it’s being looked into =)

    thanks all

    good evening here and hope you having a good weekend.. just wanted to touch base and ask if you have you heard any news or updates with the implementation of the token returns??

  26. timeisprecious123 commented on May 13, 2021

    @timeisprecious123
    timeisprecious123
    on May 13, 2021

    good morning...i am so happy i was directed to this thread as you know i also sent my dev tokens to the address on the page instead of thru metamask i am happy to see i wasnt the only one w that mistake is there any time line on when this issue might be addresssed ? thanks in advanced for your help
    take care and have a great day

  27. Toy9cito commented on May 19, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on May 19, 2021

    Please wait a little longer as we are discussing the flow.
    The operator will probably be either @aggre or @Akira-Taniguchi.

    @Toy9cito

    Good day i just wanted to communicate w you and ask if we are still on schedule any closer to a solution thanks and have a gfeat day ..

    i thank you so much for all your help

  28. Toy9cito commented on Aug 5, 2021

    @Toy9cito
    Toy9cito
    on Aug 5, 2021 via email
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions