After the depeg of UST, an airdrop of LUNA2 tokens was announced and took place for UST and Luna holders. This airdrop could influence the amounts claimed.
There have been many discussions regarding this on the Governance Discord channel where participants came up with different ways to handle the airdrop.
Attached below are the 3 different detailed proposals on which the governance will be asked to vote:
- AK’s proposal
- Skypal’s proposal
- Honza’s proposal
- The last proposal is to leave the policies as they are regardless of the change in market conditions, adapting is not seen as necessary.
Snapshot, this is a two-round vote where the two most popular options advance to the second round where they go head to head, and one of the two wins.
If Unslashed intends to retroactively change things that were contractually agreed upon and finalized at the moment the depeg occurred, they should expect to be sued for insurance fraud in IRL courts and lose. I would also expect Kleros to quickly reject such an overreach as being unfair and disallowed. This is not intended as a threat or a statement of intention, I believe it is just pointing out the reality of the situation. In the interest of that not happening, Unslashed continuing to operate, and sanity prevailing, it is worth thinking very carefully about any decision to try to enforce things retroactively, and I urge Skypal and any others who might support that proposal to consider the ramifications of violating and breaking a binding contract.
This is why insurance contracts are normally highly complex and detailed legal writings with as many guiding principles, policies, and details laid out explicitly. It is absolutely worth establishing good policies for Unslashed in the future, and rule-making about those policies, but those simply cannot be enforced retroactively due to the basics of how contracts and the legal system functions: Once an agreement is brought into place, it cannot be changed without the consent of both parties or an adequate time or means to reject such a change (e.g. returning the cover/insurance, which is not possible when a depeg event has already begun)
This methodology of voting is also extremely biased and problematic, akin to there being a “spoiler” candidate in a presidential race. Consider for example the following outcome:
Skypal - 35%
AK - 32.5%
Honza - 32.5%
This means that 65% of voters supported either taking no action at all (Honza) or taking very selective action (my proposal), yet as it is stated, the result would be taking Skypal’s proposal.
This process should be paused until there are two proposals or governance is done on the matters at hand (e.g. should the LUNA2 airdrop count toward future claims) rather than on straw-men proposals which leave far less flexibility and create competing voters for the same ideas.
Edit 2: After discussion with both Honza and Skypal, we agreed to an updated approach to solve the problem laid out in my first edit. Please disregard my point in edit 1 now.
The current proposal on Snapshot is set to use the top 2 winners, which then compete head-to-head. This way any ‘tie’ is forced to have a tie-breaker.