Reimburse Accidental Burned KEEP Token

Hi All,

A few minutes ago I accidentally sent 261632 KEEP tokens to the KEEP contract address (instead of another wallet like I meant to). I’m writing this today with the hopes that you can sympathize with my plight and support my reimbursement efforts.

You can see those transactions here and here

There have been countless examples of this sort of thing throughout the years where communities stepped up and helped people who’ve had issues or made costly mistakes, and I’m hoping for the understanding and support of the KEEP community to make this less of a painful experience for me.

What I’m asking for is some kind of full or partial reimbursement in the form of vesting KEEP tokens, to come out of treasury. Considering I seem to have burned 260000 of the KEEP supply, it would seem to not really have any detrimental affect to allocate a similar amount of tokens to me. And even though the tokens I burned were not vesting tokens, I think vesting would be more appropriate to ensure I remain an active and participatory community member after this experience.

I’m open to other ideas if anyone has any- whatever the community thinks is fair/appropriate. Obviously you are under no obligation to do anything, but I think it would be a great show of leadership & generosity for the KEEP community to do something to help make this experience less painful for me.

Thanks for reading this far.

Sincerest appreciation,

Damn, I’m sorry for your loss; that’s super painful. I’ve made various mistakes with wallets and have had more liquidations staking ETH for tBTC than I expected (and others have had orders of magnitude greater losses, including from single signers not responding in time).

This seems like something the DAO should take up in the context of how much to allocate (if any) for various issues people have encountered over the life of the project - but also going forward (while avoiding moral hazard actually creating more incidents). I’d be interested in that discussion, as it raises important questions of individual contribution of various types vs. the collective goals. I can imagine some spirited debate (and creative ideas).

Hey John, thanks again for the thoughtful response. While I agree making mistakes is part of learning, in an ideal world there is some kind of resolution when something like this happens (with a large negative impact on one person, that is easily remedied by another party without much effort).

In my instance, I accidentally burned 261632 KEEP tokens, thereby permanently reducing the KEEP supply by the same amount. So if the DAO were to issue me vesting KEEP tokens, it would not really have much of a net detrimental affect (if any at all) on the overall KEEP project. But it would demonstrate the DAO’s willingness to support their users when reasonable requests are made for assistance.

I’m not sure I agree with you that the DAO should define specific responses to particular situations that have arisen or might arise in the future, but I agree that on a case-by-case basis it should absolutely be discussed.

Do you have any thoughts about my specific request, or what you’d suggest as an alternative if you’re not in favor? I know I’m asking for a lot, but any input would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry for your loss. It sucks to lose hard-earned money in this manner.

I personally am against the project team/community compensating for such an event. This goes against the philosophy of being your own bank. I have lost money multiple times in scams, hacks, and sometimes purely by just being a dumbass over the last 5 years. I take full ownership of losses just like I do for my profits.

I am very sympathetic about your loss. I know it sucks to be in this position but I think it would be bad precedent. This is my personal opinion and it’s ok if not everyone agrees.

Appreciate the response @mutedtommy. Do you not think I benefitted the project by burning some of the supply (even if it was an accident)? It seems fair to compensate me in some capacity, even if it’s not full reimbursement

I’m also sorry for your big loss! Have lost money as well, not in this particular way, but it sucks!

I’m not sure if benefitted the project is the correct wording here. You’ve reduced the supply, so it could increase the token price. But in this logic stakers - node operators, that were slashed for for whatever , also helped the project and should be compensated?

My issue with any sort of compensation of this sort is:

  1. Where are the funds coming from
  2. What are the decision factors case by case
  3. What is the capped max. For example what if it were a 100M tokens?

An important point: the DAO can not mint new KEEP tokens → Meaning it would have to come from the existing treasury. That treasury is intended for other purposes, e.g. developer grants, staker rewards, liquidity incentives, coverage pool boot-strapping etc.

So in that sense, a compensation reduces the ability for the project to execute it’s goals.

What’s your take on this @tinky

1 Like

Hey @nahuus123 thanks for providing your input.

I can’t speak to the node operators or logic stakers as I’m not familiar with their potential losses, nor have I seen a request for compensation by them.

But in terms of my request-

  1. Where are the funds coming from

I would think the DAO treasury

  1. What are the decision factors case by case

I would leave this up to the DAO. I think it’s hard to make a specific set of criteria since you can’t really imagine every potential scenario. But my guidance would be

  • does it seem like a reasonable request
  • is it small enough that it won’t have a measurable affect on the DAO
  • does it seem like that person just wants to take the money and run, or will they stick around and help the project? Offering vesting tokens is a great compromise in that regard
  1. What is the capped max. For example what if it were a 100M tokens?

It ought to be voted on (if we want to actually define specific criteria). But given that the total KEEP supply is 1,000,000,000, 1 million tokens or less is a negligible amount in the grand scheme of things. I’m not sure how much is in treasury, that would obviously affect what appears to reasonable.

Let me know what you think. I know I’m asking for a lot here, but given the magnitude of the mistake on my end and the minimal affect it would have on the DAO it seems reasonable to me. But again, not asking for full reimbursement, just whatever the community thinks is okay (if anything).

Good dialog started here. While I’m sympathetic to anyone who believes in the project and invests time and/or capital and loses funds that might be added to project goals (vs. taking gains off the table, which is also totally legitimate), I also understand those who will argue that this is a slippery slope we shouldn’t venture down. And there are historical examples in Ethereum like the 2016 DAO hack, where enough participants believed that the enormity of the taking so early in the project’s life posed serious risks to the whole endeavor - and others vehemently disagreed with altering the past.

To go down this path, I’d say we would need:

  1. A sense of stakeholders’ willingness to consider compensation for past events; perhaps a vote on the concept prior to the particulars, as we did with the merger.

  2. Our DAO in place and alignment on “budget” for all the initiatives the project needs.

  3. A discussion of and alignment on guiding principles for compensating for losses; and then a clear process and cadence for doing so. It’s not only unworkable to be done on a one-off basis, we also need to carefully consider how compensation would impact people’s future actions (moral hazard). I’d also add that there’s only so much bandwidth stakeholders have, and we need to first get that focused on the mission-critical strategy and execution.

Another good point I heard someone make: given the merge with NuCypher, it’s not just Keep history and community now that we have to take into account. A lot to consider, but good that we are doing so in a constructive way.


We can give you a special role on the Discord that states you’re generous and burnt tokens to assist in making KEEP a deflationary asset, but i do not think the dao paying it back is a good idea. If anything, we could start a community driven donation to try to make you whole, but not from dao funds.

Hey @john_packel,

Do you have any specific thoughts in terms of your 3 points? I think it’s important to define those as well but I’m not really sure where to start.


@pantsme I appreciate the sentiment. I’m not really optimistic that anyone would actually donate, so while that’s a nice idea I don’t see it actually having any impact.

And I’m not really interested in a special “discord” tag, that has no monetary value and doesn’t do anything to make up for what happened. Thanks for responding either way.

@tinky unfortunately there is not enough support for this proposal to move it to an official community multisig vote. However, you are welcome to submit another proposal to the upcoming Threshold DAO when it launches. At that point the community will own a treasury and there will be a more clear source of funds to issue a reimbursement. Also worth noting again that you are not the only person who has accidentally sent funds to the token contract and no reimbursement has been made in the past. This issue is being addressed with the new T token contract.

@Will I’m the one who has sent BY FAR the most to the contract. It has 274365 KEEP in it. Out of that, 261632 came from me (95.3% of it).

Where is the statement “there is not enough support for this proposal to move it to an official community multisig vote” coming from?

The statement comes from the responses on this thread and conversations with other community members who’s opinions are not directly represented here.

I understand this is unfortunate. However, the best option for you is to bring this up again as a Threshold DAO proposal. One of the core issues here is there is no clear source of community funds for the reimbursement to be issued from at the moment. It isn’t fair for this to come from stakedrop funds because that incurs direct loss to others for a mistake you made.

You should also know that we do have a community grant program. Do you have any ideas outside of tx reverts for how this issue can be avoided in the future? The community might decide that is a great grant opportunity and award you some KEEP to make it happen.

Hi Will-

Just wanted to follow up on this. I noticed a similar issue that was brought up on Compound forums, and they voted to return the funds to the sender.

They added a sweep function to their contract and every 6 months they return any eligible funds to the sender (while assessing 10% penalty to the sender). Is there a reason that something like that could not be done by KEEP?