my main point should be: that guy should not pay with his own money but whatever solution will be selected it should be taken from the whole project.
what I would still insist on is that it was a mistake and no fraud. everyone in the telegramchat during the launch realized that. and i have wittnessed serious people outside of 1hive-community that are still wild on everything that launches here
Thanks for your integrity, you guys have my full support.
i dont wanna interfere anymore but one should also consider in this situation that he got very little competition in buying these 5 tokens because the rest of the audience was waiting for a pullback from the 50x of initial price. there would have been a lot more buyers if the price would have been more reasonable
I fully agree with you. But the real problem is not the initial price mistake. The main issue is the creation of the second pool that has created an unfair situation. It’s like selling the same asset at 2 different prices. The price was not anymore dictated by the market but by the other pool which is equivalent to market manipulation. @GreenHornet should not be the one paying with his money because again the problem isn’t the money the problem is the quantity of tokens that the 1st purchasers ended up with : a fraction of a token
You can’t talk about competition if you create another pool for the same asset and change the price!! Where is the competition if you do so?
bare with me the proposal will be up soon. I think it may be helpful for some constructive criticism when it goes up. from there we someone can make another one or we can vote on the one being put up.
I have checked the spreadsheet and this is why I’m making these comments. We are focusing on the initial price but this is not the real issue. Believe me I’m not criticizing I’m just highlighting that it’s unfair to only payback the estimated loss because these people should have had a higher number of tokens. So we are taking this right from them and giving it to other people!
I understand where your coming from. There is a core team of people working on this project, but the reason why we decided to distribute the tokens before the launch of the platform is because we really believe in experimenting with decentralised governance.
What we are doing here is d-gov in practice! Its a hard problem with no obvious solution, but while it can look messy, the key strength in this style of governance is in the fact that it can surface multiple solutions to hard problems. This being a case in point.
Personally i think the solution in the spreadsheet is the fairest solution put forth to date. But there are other ideas and options. I really think it would be useful and best for the community if there were more than one proposal to vote on. You have strong opinions on how it should be done, I would really appreciate it if you would also put one forward.
While I am going to put one forward, I will vote with what the community feel is best.
There are a lot of excellent points from both points of view. No proposal will please everyone, but due to the complexity of the situation, I don’t think we can create a simple formula to determine what to do.
I recommend that this is handled in multiple steps.
Who was potentially affected?
Decide at a high level what qualifies for compensation and what disqualifies.
Review the addresses and “follow the money” - We should only compensate for actual loss, not based on initial trade. Bought for $500 when it should have been $5, but then sold at $400. They shouldn’t be compensated based on a $495 pricing error, they should be compensated based on a $100 loss.
We should do a snapshot to lock in the value to use to determine unrealized loss for those that held on.
Once we have a good idea on the total amount, put it to a vote to see if we will reimburse partial or in full.
It’s definitely a lot of work. I’d be more than happy to help out in anyway I can.
By definition no one person has control over a DAO. 
If you have Agave you have control.
This situation is very distrurbing to me. I consolidated everything I had into honey to be ready for this launch. Burned all my lp and converted everything to honey. I did this because the plan was to launch hny/agave only.
I couldn’t get back to weth after the pool was made because making that pool caused a huge drop in honey, which I was all in now. I lost in both aspects, not able to buy agave at the anticipated price and not being able to go back to weth from honey without taking a nearly 20% loss.
It is impossible to determine anyone’s possible outcome now. Getting something back is better than nothing but could never compensate for the huge opportunity loss this mishap created.
The only people who knew the weth pool was being created were the ones who bought it up before any of us could.
Agave didn’t launch as planned or publicly announced.
A new pool was created without vote or proper announcement.
100% of liquidity pulled out of honey pool
The dip caused by team selling honey forced us to stay in honey or take huge loss to convert to weth.
The people who created the new pool were the ones to buy it all up first.
Where did the weth come from to pool the 9000 agave? Who decided to create the weth pool and how do they have complete control when this is a dao?
The mistake was corrected by literally taking, what would have been all our profits, and pooling them into weth and buying it all up.
I want to add that I think the work being done to correct this is arduous and applaude @Luigy for taking the time to compile and offer a solution. Thank you for that!
Just want to say this isn’t true. As far as I know, no one who was on the call and knew the WETH pool plans bought when that liquidity was added, before the price stabilized.
I can conform this too (´ ∀ ` *)
good job,a better day
Good Job sir! Keep building, I trust Agave and honey
I understand the situation, but don’t worry. We are thanks for everything!
So I am out .1 HNY after this and am unsure what to do…
Also let me say that the way this was handled was professional and the best possible option.
Thanks a lot