Fair is a very subjective word in this context, as lots of people have different situation.
It’s not easy to create a “scheme” that can be fair to everyone, and surely someone will be less happy than other. But if something would have been done extremely fast, someone else would come up and say “it’s too early and it’s an unfair distribution”. Back to square one then
How market manipulation is a solution to a price issue? Do you think people would have voted for creating another pool to sell the same tokens at 2 prices?
Price should be always set by the market. No one shall have the right to change that. Compensation should not be only about the amount of the loss but SHALL include the number of tokens as well!!
as said already by the team and way more expert members than me - just a random dude here - to try to fix the situation a further mistake was made. Indeed we go back to my point; Impulsive choices have a bigger downside in most cases. That approach “failed” in the attempt to make it better, hence a more reflective approach to provide everyone with a compensation.
True! But, it should be a priority. It is maybe a minor topic for a lot of people in the group. But, believe me, it could affect the reputation of 1Hive, all the ongoing projects and the market price of our tokens.
Until now, luckyly, no one did any comment in the social networks about this market manipulation but imagine the concequences of such incident before the launch of a new financial platform.
Personally the way @GreenHornet faced the public by taking responsibility and by working constantly on a fair way to fix this does affect the reputation of 1Hive, but in a good way.
I have nothing against @GreenHornet. We all make mistakes. I appreciate the way he explained the situation and I did not comment until now because I was expecting things to happen. But we are now focusing on other topics and for this one we just wait and see… We should learn from this situation how prevent such incidents in the future. But in a DAO one person SHALL not have the right to change the price of an asset. Price reflects the interaction between supply and demand. These are the basics!
Thanks for the info.
I think it is important to remember the buyers who bought b4 the rug pull are most likely 1hive supportes and big supporters of agave.
For me I saw this as an amazing product for xDai and was so keen to buy into it. I was under the impression the launch happened as it should and cringe at the immediate prices but bought a few because I thought it would continue to rise, I didn’t want to miss out.
Then We find out the launch was botched. I feel we all very accomodating of the issue but I just want to reiterate the value and passion of those like myself who bought at launch for the long term success of the platform. We are for AGAVE in a big way please keep this in consideration for whatever the final proposal is.
I am drafting a proposal on how we can rectify the situation as we speak, I expect to finish it tonight and post it tomorrow. Figuring out how to do this is really hard and takes time. It has been 5 days and there has been a lot happening. That being said this is a DAO, Anyone can make a proposal here and put it up to a vote. Mine will not be perfect but its what I believe to be fair.
The team had an emergency call trying to figure out what to do. we decided to pull the liquidity.
Others had added to the pool and so the damage was done, there was no way to reset the pool to the correct price. I swapped 52 of the remaining HNY for WETH so I could create a new pool at the correct price. This also had a negative effect on the HNY price, but at that point, we had to get the remaining 9000 AGVE into Honeyswap
If an entire team decided to manipulate the market price. Then, the situation is worse than what I thought
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.