[ARCHIVED] Return BIT mistakenly sent to contract address

Whoa, that’s wild!

I really do believe that this could largely be avoided with a simple check to determine if the destination address that’s being attempted is a known contract-address. Implementing this would be hugely beneficial to the community, particularly those among us who are most vulnerable.

The reality is that there are certain individuals who are far more prone to making these types of mistakes- particularly those with cognitive processing disorders that result in difficulties with pattern recognition / impulsiveness / memory impairment. They are also disproportionately impacted by financial hardships.

Considering the well-being of vulnerable members of the community is imperative if we are to ensure that we’re adequately expanding accessibility as the ecosystem scales up.

Does anyone know the best way to get a hold of Ben from Bybit? I feel like ByBit would be able to easily set the trend by providing this as a feature when withdrawing from their platform.


Yeah, with the prospect of making transfer mistakes is ever-present, being able to undo you mistake is definitely a good thing :+1:

Unfortunately, when inspecting the status of the receiver address things can get complex quite quickly (many contracts don’t implement EIP-165 or a have consistent interface for retrieving tokens from the token contract address).

An easier remedy is usually adding a withdraw to owner function (as most inherit from Ownable), or perhaps for the BitDAO token, it could be a withdraw to the BitDAO treasury :thinking:
Using a withdraw feature on the contract allows any of the above processes (partial return / charitable giving / burn program) to then be implemented, either off-chain (by admins) or on-chain (by more contract).

Although the withdraw to owner is a straightforward addition, it does mean a change to the BitDAO contract, which is not proxied, which would mean a contract address change for everyone (as new contract means a new contract address), in addition to the fun of migration (data from the old to the new contract).

Changes to address are often done easier rather than later, due to few outdated links (the previous contract).


I envisioned a trusted party, one that has been vetted (and preferably bondable in some tangible way), that does the legwork with respect to investigating claims of mistaken transfers, and then distributes funds from a distinct AE’s treasury who’s mandate it is to rectify incidents of avoidable loss. This would require the formation of an AE, of course (or could be included in the mandate of the current community AE that’s being formed, pending future proposal).

The only way I could get onboard with suggesting any change to fundamental aspects of the contract address would be that decision coming directly from the core development team… and I feel that we could easily engage with solutions that would not only be far simpler, but would also showcase what community-focused initiatives within the DAO itself can result it.

Stay tuned; I’ll be updating this proposal into the future. When I initially wrote this, I had far less experience with the nuances of how a DAO functions- this post would have been best included in a separate board for preliminary discussion. The soft proposals that are put through to this board should meet a certain standard of quality, and my post came nowhere near to what I now see should be expected.

With that said, viable solutions await. If anyone is interested in contributing, has any concerns or questions… hit me up in the Discord, or pm me here. You can always post here too, of course.

Thanks for your engagement monkey_scratch_head- also love your name, lol.


Functionally speaking, the actions that an admin may undertake to investigate and rectify, could definitely be performed by an AE. You’re right to point out there are additional considerations with an AE approach.

The challenge with the BIT token contract today, is that as soon as it receives any tokens they are lost.
Without changing the contract, you’re probably limited to compensation pools, as even the best education and prevention techniques cannot save somebody who really wants to transfer using Etherscan …but, there are others to save :grin:

Looking forward to it :+1:

No worries, happy to help out, …whenever time permits :slightly_smiling_face:


Cannot transfermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnn


Hi @monkey_scratch_head
Very much appreciate your response! Apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

That’s the conclusion I came to myself as well, compensation pools. The proposal would really be a mercy-plea to BitDAO token-holders; return the majority of what was accidentally sent, with the difference between what was sent, and what was returned to the individual who made the mistake (presumably from the treasury, EDIT: because, how else?) being considered burned. As I consistently see calls to burn tokens, this in and of itself might heal two birds with one bandage, so to speak.

Your thoughts and help are greatly appreciated! Feel free to tag me in the Discord if you would like to discuss this further!



1 Like



This text will be hidden

Definitely, an interesting proposal.