A functional DAO must have means and mechanism to enforce its interests incase parties to the DAO decide to scam the DAO. While it does not make any sense to engage law enforcement, nor are such actions in the interest of decentralised communities, that doesnt mean a DAO should not have the ability to enforce its collective interests in the face of adversaries and bad faith actors who decide to scam the community.
One of the way this can be done is by putting up a public bounty so that independent recovery agents or bounty hunters can be incentivised to deliver the bounty to the Optimism Collective, and in return they can collect their share of the reward.
In this regard, it is now proposed to allocate 1M OP tokens as a public bounty for the capture of Perpetual Protocol developers who have scammed the Optimism Collective.
The Perp v1 protocol suffered millions in losses due to volatile market conditions that have nothing to do with Optimism Collective,
To offset the losses sustained by them, the Perpetual Protocol team have used the grants provided by Optimism Collective to fill holes in their pocket, despite promising they would use the OP token grants to increase protocol liquidity.
An analysis of wallets that received the OP token shows that an overwhelming majority of the tokens (>70%) were funnelled back to wallets owned by the Perpetual Protocol team, and were dumped for stablecoins.
As per this proposal, the Optimism Collective will allocate a 1M OP token reward for any bounty hunter or recovery agent who can recover the equivalent amount of OP tokens that the Perpetual Protocol have scammed the Optimism Collective.
Once the bounty proposal has passed the governance, the bounty will be publicised on asset recovery forums and groups, so that interested recovery agents can put forth their proposals to the Optimism Collective.
Idea of bounty is welcomed in general but we should give them(Perp Team) to respond to all these allegation. And you can ask the team here
In total 1.3M token was converted to stable, 500K was for grant and builder which was paid in stable, not ideal but it depends on their agreement, if they agreed to pay in $OP or in Stable
They need to give clarification on rest (800K) $OP token, and as they have mentioned in their proposal that they will match the incentives 1:1, we also need to know if they dumped their native token as well or not ?
OP Team is aware of this and they are working on getting all the facts, lets just give them some time.
While I do agree with the intention, I believe that there should be careful consideration on the methods used to act on this (if at all), due to the fact that it could bring legal issues to the OP Collective. The fact that this happened is more of a learning lesson for the OP Collective, and I do not believe that there is a way to ‘take back’ what was given.
Additionally, I would recommend a stronger solution prior to requesting an allocation of this amount. Simply throwing OP tokens at issues does not really count as a solution IMO, especially when there is not an actual ‘bug’.
Again, I do agree with you on the underlying topic, but I personally believe that voters should be committed to voting on behalf of the longevity of the OP collective. This does not include coordinating a ‘bug bounty’ to retrieve tokens distributed at the fault of our collective governance decisions. Further, I strongly encourage the rest of the voters to not fund or participate in anything borderline illegal as the actions suggested in this post.
Perhaps we wait, as @OPUser has suggested, and find a more diplomatic way of handling this situation… Worst case scenario, it will be a (very expensive) lesson for us going forward.
Obviously, the perpetual protocol airdrop OP event to users proves that the perpetual protocol is a bad team. Ostensibly to give back to the user. In fact, it is to use users to achieve the purpose of cashing out. Many users only got 0.1 or 0.2 OP. A large number of OPs were airdropped into the project party’s own wallet.