This comment is not true on multiple fronts.
-
First off, No one from the team was a victim of this attack and therefore no one from Warbler is receiving any of this money.
-
Investors have not lost 80% of their money with Goldfinch. All time repayments to the protocol stand at a little under 65% of total invested capital (meaning ~35% yet to be paid back), plus another $8.5M (~7.5% of all time invested) set to be paid back with quarterly disbursements starting next year (these were the deals just announced by the CRO last week). Plus the GFI liquidity mining rewards add another 5-25% depending on when someone sold it. All told, including GFI rewards, we’re in the neighborhood of 80-100%+ of total invested capital going back to investors. Of course that’s an average, and some people made money while others lost money. I’m not trying to defend the overall state of things as good by any means. I’m losing money like everyone else. But actual losses are far below 80%.
-
Along similar lines, even the Backers from these late pools who won’t get any principal back received ~50% of their money as interest, plus GFI rewards. All early pools, and even some later pools (like Fazz) repaid fully.
-
There has been very substantial help beyond the Stratos situation (which was $5M off of Warbler’s own balance sheet, btw). The protocol paid out $1M for the Tugende situation, and also paid out $1.15M to help with LendEast, plus is about to pay out another 450k GFI ($100k-ish) or so in new GFI this week, according to this proposal which just passed last week. This adds up to over $7M of aid for lenders.
So the $250k here from an existing budget to maintain technical integrity and help victims of the hack is ~3.5% of the total money that lenders have received as compensation for losses. Thus the implication that we haven’t prioritized lenders is simply not true. There is more than that though that the protocol needs to maintain. And at ~0.6% of the remaining Senior Pool amount, this money would be of negligible help to lenders anyway.
Plus I think this situation is simply different. In one case, lenders consciously invested a certain amount of money, and knew what the max loss was. This is something where people were doing test deposits to help the protocol test and then 5 years later had an (uncapped) amount of money simply taken from them by a hacker.