Dear @Naguib thank you very much for responding and writing, we really appreciate it ^^
As I wrote several times before, AAVE did not calculate based on 87.5k APY, this is the key point why the rest of the numbers do not add up. And the last 2 proposals (1 link ; 2 link) that affected the AMPL mechanics should not have been used, because investors found themselves in a situation of error, with the inability to extract their liquidity. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to take into account the reduction in APY from 87.5k to the APR that AAVE took into account, same as changing RF to 99%.
Investors did not have the opportunity to pull out liquidity to receive rebases.
The asset grew up by 500-600% thanks to rebases. Therefore, the correct calculation would be to take the Correct aAMPL on 16 December and calculate it based on all rebases.
Or as second option - calculate it based on 87.5k APY (without using the wrong 2 proposals for this asset, which I noted in link 1 and link 2. None of options (rebases from December 16 or 87.5k APY without 99% RF) were not used to calculate correctly.
I don’t want to participate in the process that @AMPLER proposed to contact the regulator to ask for help and complain about AAVE and AMPL, this idea is completely unpleasant and not close to me. Especially considering that I really like both projects and have been investor in them for many years and wish them only success and prosperity.
Nevertheless, I agree with him that it would be great to come to an agreement peacefully, and for investors to get a little more from what AAVE offered as “fair” 100%, because that’s actually not a fair solution, arguments for what I wrote earlier in this message.