Introduction:
It has come to the attention of the GMX contributors that Archi Finance, a third party vault V1 built on GLP has abandoned their project. GMX contributors have been unable to reach their team and currently the website and social channels are empty.
Users of Archi V1 GLP vaults are currently unable to withdraw from the GLP vaults, effectively locking their funds.
There is currently a TVL of ~1.92m locked in the contracts at Archi.
After an investigation, it may be possible to allow these funds to be accessed by their individual depositors. This proposal will go to a snapshot vote to get the approval of the GMX DAO to create this contract and restore user access to these funds.
Process:
The process is outlined below:
Create a contract and initialize the GLP balance of each Archi user in it
Grant it permission to transfer the GLP from the Archi contract to itself
Allow users to claim GLP from this contract based on the balance from (1)
Contributors are seeking approval from the GMX DAO to facilitate this migration from the Archi Vault to the GLP vault.
GMX contributors welcome input from the GMX community on this subject. A snapshot will be taken from the GMX DAO and with that guidance contributors can either begin the process of recovering these funds. With rejection, no actions will be taken ​​will be taken based on the community sentiment and vote.
*GMX contracts are open source, integrating GMX contracts is not an endorsement from GMX contributors or the GMX DAO. This proposal is not a guarantee or promise funds will be able to be retrieved.
The intension is good, but won’t this raise additional questions and fud? How is it even possible to take control of another project and distribute its funds as we wish? Could we easily “hack” any other GLP/GM integrations in the future and take control of they funds ?
Agree with Saulius, the moment GMX does this, it would enable others in the space to question how centralized this move would be.
There is always risk when depositing funds in other dapps, I feel bad for users whom funds are stuck, but doing so would draw fud towards GMX. Stick to the ethos of decentralization would be my vote… If we execute this proposal it might cost us more than 1.9m in the long run as fudders will bring this up when we say that GMX is a decentralized perps.
I’m unfamiliar with Archi Finance, how are the funds stuck? Unless the Archi contracts don’t allow you to withdraw (a risk those users should know about) couldn’t we just make a temporary front end allowing users to withdraw directly from those contracts?
I agree with Saulius, it would be a bad look to do anything other than help users access the vaults they deposited into. If we demonstrate that we can arbitrarily move funds around (already alarming to read that this is theoretically possible), it completely undermines the credible neutrality of the protocol and will create a slippery slope for future instances.
This contract is behind a timelock, but it will hopefully allow the contract to unstake the fsGLP from the Archi contract, moving the staked GLP into a separate contract and then only allow the GLP to be accessed by the individuals who own that specific GLP.
Since this is for V1, moving the controls to the DAO has not been prioritised, but this would be a good time to do that for additional security
So there can be two snapshot votes, one for the community to approve the DAO accepting control of all V1 contracts, and another for the DAO to help in retrieving the GLP tokens in the Archi contract
For more context, for unknown reasons the Archi devs have been unresponsive, the Archi contracts were working fine before and the contracts could be interacted with directly, but since there were changes from months ago to support the creation of the GMX DAO as well as removal of multiplier points, the Archi GLP contract has stopped working since then because the old RewardRouter contract has been disabled and despite numerous attempts there hasn’t been anyone contactable to help update the Archi contract to use the new RewardRouter contract
I think it is worth noting that I am not aware or any contributors who have exposure to this vault.
Regarding the FUD possibilities, I suppose I can see where that is coming from but I could just as easily say it is FUD worthy to not assist users who have supported GMX even if through third-party vaults. I think the right thing to do is to help users who are in need of help, this has always been the ethos of GMX, everything GMX has done puts the community and GMX traders/LP first. Ultimately, it will come down to the DAO to decide but I feel strongly, if we can help users, we should.
If this project has been abandoned help the people who support GMX by purchasing GLP. Imagine if these users support GLV to add additional liquidity for the protocol as we expand markets/assets. Just because you are DEFI doesn’t mean you don’t have recourse to help others.
I get where the “this could cause FUD” camp is coming from, but the exact opposite could occur given the context. The GMX platform could bolster its standing as a safe haven to store wealth in the form of GLP/GM/GLV since the DAO or the protocol may rescue your liquidity tokens if they are stuck in a defunct vault.
If other platforms that issue liquidity tokens were to tell their liquidity-token holders to go kick rocks, then GMX would stand out as a protocol/community that looks out for its GLP holders.
This would be a PR win based on how people spin it. And there is nuance here that would need to be highlighted: That it’s to recover users’ GLP that is trapped in a DEFUNCT project.
In short, it could be perceived as adding value to the GLP token.
I can see the negative views, but I completely agree with Blueberry_KR and Btcfever, if GMX can help users, we should.
LPs as well as traders and holders are an important part of the GMX ecosystem. In this case the proposal doesn’t say to take the funds by force, but to make them accesible to the original LPs which got left down by a mismanaged protocol. This doesn’t show a vulnerability on GMX but it shows strength and fairness.
Defi should be about good products, good services, good use of resources,… not inefficiencies caused by stucked funds in old versions, or abandoned protocols. For Defi to win on the long run, it has to be remain strong and decentralized but be just and fair.
I believe we should support this and help the original GLP users. This at the same time would show adding value to the GLP token and GMX.
The FAIR option is to do nothing. To pick and chose when to bend the rules is not fair. Defi is all about self sovereignty, if we show that the devs can arbitrarily reassign ownership of liquidity deposited in the protocol, there is no promise that they cant take yours away at any time.
This IS a vulnerability and an enormous breach of trust. The devs of a Defi protocol should not be able to have control over users assets.
I need to know more about how this would be done, I’m quite alarmed that this is even possible and i’m sure other LPs are too. Step 2 in the process outlined by @BlueBerry_KR is “Grant it permission to transfer the GLP from the Archi contract to itself”. This sounds like the devs can reassign ownership of GLP to anyone at any time…
Can anyone on the dev team @xdev_10 defend this proposal or even defend why the actions outlined are feasible?
If there is a rational explanation to why this is action is technically possible, while at the same time it not being possible for the devs to write a similar contract to steal my funds, then I would reconsider.
Currently there is a 24 hour timelock, moving control to the DAO would change this to an 8 day delay with voting required to assign permissions to new contracts
I will vote against it. GMX is decentralized and shall not get involved in anything that has nothing to do with our protocol. Regardless. I’ve been with GMX for over 3 years, lost a lot of money with other protocols. This movement will force me to unstake,sell and move over. We do not know any details as to why “Archi” does that or as to what hapenned to it.
Maybe the owner got sick? Ill?
If we can easily get access to Archi, is GMX protected?
That idea make me sick…
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. These mechanism are not always clear to non technical users, thanks for the clarification.
I really believe that if this passes, more care should be taken with the messaging. KR did not present this in a way what was clear (to me at least) or emphasize nearly enough that there is protection from misuse of this tool.
I’m still unlikely to vote for this, but if it does pass, I’d prefer the controls be passed to the DAO first so that public messaging has a HUGE emphasis placed on the 8 day time lock and the decentralized mechanism used to execute this change.
Casually stating that the devs are reassigning ownership of GLP funds would be a PR disaster.
Is this a joke? GLP folks put money into a protocol that is defunct. Sick and Illness doesn’t mean you’re protocol doesn’t work (or its that poorly designed). As a former Celsius creditor who lost what was consider life altering dollars I would publicly praise this action.
This is not a joke. GLP “folks” are very well aware of the ricks they’re taking and I’m very sorry to hear that you considered your investment in crypto as “life altering dollars”.
I still insist we shall be decentralized , especially wothout any knowledge as to what really hapenned to begin with.
Anyway, I’ve lost a lot in crypto and its all my fault.
I will vote against if this goes to proposal.
?