[DISCUSSION] Return BIT mistakenly sent to contract address

Proposal Title: Return BIT Mistakenly Sent to Contract Address at a rate of 90%

Proposal:

Return BIT mistakenly sent to the contract address. I̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶r̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶y̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶d̶.̶ ̶D̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶f̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶e̶s̶h̶o̶l̶d̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶9̶0̶%̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶e̶c̶h̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶v̶o̶i̶d̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶o̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶B̶I̶T̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶r̶n̶e̶d̶.̶

Furthermore, encourage industry partners to implement a mechanism that notifies any individual who is attempting to make a transfer to the contract address.

**EDIT: Upon further investigation into the contract, it appears that the dev is able to transfer funds out of the contract address. I would like to amend this proposal to a 90% return of funds, with 5% going to the treasury, and 5% (up to a maximum threshold) going to a developer’s fund.

Authors: deefs. Apologies if my proposal is lacking in any way, has any glaring holes / gaps, or is based on any fundamental misunderstandings. I’m very open to criticism, including “well that sounds like a you problem” (it really is, you wouldn’t be wrong).

I’ve been lurking DAO boards for a bit (hehe), and when I made this mistake myself (this morning on my way to class uwu) I figured it was an opportunity to look for a solution through our Governance process. I was actually transferring out of Bybit so that I could delegate!

Date: October 18th, 2021.

How will your proposal, if activated, benefit BitDAO?

Besides contributing to the treasury, this would demonstrate mercy on those who made this mistake, while still disencentivizing exploitation through the treasury contribution.

For some, lost value can be a life-changing set of events that directly relates to real challenges (my Bybit drop was going to help me pay my tuition this semester!). This would implement a solution that would not only

What are the projected outcomes?

The return of value to those community members who have mistakenly sent their BIT into the figurative black hole that is the contract address.

The adoption of an industry wide ‘best-practice’ in which attempts to transfer or withdraw a token to its contract addresses are identified, and would require prior whitelisting with a notification requesting confirmation.

How long will it take to complete your proposed changes?

This I, unfortunately, do not have the expertise to answer with any degree of accuracy.

Who is involved?

Predominantly those who have mistakenly sent tokens to the contract address, though this has a tangible effect on the whole of the BitDAO community.

Industry partners for the adoption of the aforementioned ‘best practice’.

What are the milestones?

The return of tokens.
The implementation of said ‘best practice’ by our industry partners.

Technical details?

Again, I do not have the expertise- but I imagine there would be a way to automate this effectively.

Next Steps? If this proposal is accepted, what are the immediate action items?

Providing a form for requests dating back to the inception of the protocol.

Thanks for your time! <3

11 Likes

I did some research recently. Unless the contract designers add an additional function to reverting tokens, all contract codes following ERC20 standards are unable to revert those poor tokens mistakenly sent.

Years ago, someone proposing another improvement standard ERC223 standard but it seems ignored. This should be an important issue to assure ethereum users to protect their crypto asset but most people turn a blind eye on it since only victims would know how devastating it is. And it somehow would give an impression that existing centralised financial system could return any transaction mistakenly sent but crypto world cannot. This definitely hinders the wide adoption of cryptocurrency.

As one of the victims and also a supporter of crypto and bitdao, I’m not just asking for refunds, I am telling the truth and hope BitDao can show to crypto community how responsible and how capable of self- improving and bitdao can take leading role to show the world they can do the same things as centralised financial system can if only DAO contributors want to and vote to.

3 Likes

Providing that it is technically impossible to revert those tokens mistakenly sent. For the returning, I would suggest returning those poor tokens mistakenly sent if there is any buyback and burning proposal.

e.g.

  • There are totally 90,000 BIT Tokens mistakenly sent
  • 100,000 BIT Tokens to be bought back and burnt.
  • 90% rate of return

It will return 90,000 x 90% = 81,000 tokens to sender addresses and the remaining 19,000 BIT Tokens shall send to designated blackhole address.

4 Likes

Thank you for the support!

If you check out the contract address, you’ll see a function that suggests that the administrator has the ability to transfer funds from one address to another.

Attached is a screenshot;

2 Likes

Actually Binance has launched a BNB Pioneer Burn Program to help eligible users losing tokens by mistakes. BitDao could make reference to the program mechanism.

4 Likes

This seems like a great model- though I take issue with the 1,000USD cap. I understand the need to mitigate the volume of requests, but with that said those who are likely to chase a thousand dollar loss are likely those who would need it the most.

The transfer I had personally made was actually under 1000USD, and I was going to realize some gains with the intention of paying some of my tuition as my student financial assistance has yet to come through!

2 Likes

Good idea!
This is insignificant at the level of the total suply and market cap and, as a consequence, for the community, but it is very important for those who were mistaken. Yes, they themselves are to blame, but we all make mistakes at some point and we shouldn’t be too harsh about other people’s mistakes.

6 Likes

Its not big money for the team, but very important for really loyal community!

4 Likes

Once again, thank you for your support!
I would love to hear about any firm ideas for a plan from those with in-depth technical knowledge.

We need to discuss feasibility and a potential roadmap :slight_smile:

3 Likes

:clap: I am ready to sign every word.

3 Likes

I have did some studies on token recovery from technical aspect.

Each Ethereum contract is a potential token trap for ERC20 tokens. They can’t be recovered so it means money losses for end users. (See Link 1) and that’s why someone proposed ERC223 token standard years ago. (See Link 2 and Link 3)

Links:

  1. ERC20 token standard issues - Google Docs

  2. https://github.com/Dexaran/ERC223-token-standard

  3. ETH Token Recover | Recover any ERC20 token lost in your contract

2 Likes

I checked with engineers on this for second opinion and confirmed that it’s not possible to sign transactions or revert tokens that have been sent to the contract address

3 Likes

Thank you JE!

Okay, with that said the other option is to allocate funds from the treasury and consider those sent tokens permanently burned.

How does everyone feel about this? What ratio do you all believe would be a fair return, while also providing a fair contribution to the community?

Who would engage in verifying claims and ultimately distributing funds?

4 Likes

A little update- as it stands, there are 91,886 BitDAO sent to the contract address. This represents a current USD value of $205,825.06. Ten percent of which is $20,582.50.

We could use that twenty grand to do something charitable, while also bringing positive publicity to the DAO. It’s not an insignificant amount of money! A “return and burn” event as described above could allow us to allocate this cash to something we would collectively determine as appropriate.

4 Likes

Recently, someone also sent 20 billion $shib to BSC contract address and now is seeking for joining the BNB Pioneer Burn Program.

3 Likes

In view of the impossibility of simply reverting tokens from contract address, I think the proposed procedure should have some amendments taking reference from BNB Pioneer Burn Program.

The philosophy of the BNB Pioneer Burn Program is that, the tokens mistakenly sent are already burnt in circulation and fortunately Binance would also burn a certain amount of BNB tokens regularly. It is a best coincidence to help those poor users to get back a equivalent amount of lost tokens from BNB scheduled to be burnt.

4 Likes

Hear hear- I’ve already heard from a few people who were crushed by their mistake. I was tangibly harmed myself, but not as drastically as many others. At the very least, it would be a show of consideration and good faith to those who made this mistake.

I would be happy to volunteer my time to do any of the required heavy lifting (any that I can, at least).

4 Likes

Another same tragedy just happened to ConstitutionDAO investor who mistakenly sent his token (worth about 3.7 million USD) to the contract address itself.

https://etherscan.io/address/0x7a58c0be72be218b41c608b7fe7c5bb630736c71

2 Likes

Amazed the $PEOPLE community has donated over $3M to his address :slight_smile:

3 Likes

The donation is a cool act of sympathy. At the same time, it also reflected most crypto users notice this kind of tragedy and understand the technical limitation of reverting ERC20 tokens mistakenly sent because of the immutability of blockchain.

However, rules are dead but people are not.
We might think of some solutions to avoid this tragedy, which potentially bring up bad user experience and hinder the wide adoption of cryptocurrency.

BitDao Community could take this chance to play the leading role to set up some regulations or mitigation measures.

3 Likes