Ampl team didnt even stick this link on their discord and telegram, and write to aAmpl holders so they can claim their capital. This guys are terribly ignorant 
Correct ! The time and energy that has been put into this is very much appreciated.
The Ampl team is clearly the team that is not showing its best side.
The first fact error has been recognized now yet a fair solution.
The second fact is that the amount made available is only 40 to 50% of the investment says enough, I think.
The game that is now being played to keep costs as low as possible is at the expense of the investors.
I have been in contact with several investors and we all agree that this compensation is not sufficient.
Here is an urgent request to increase the 2nd compensation or there will be a 3rd and final compensation.
In terms of figures, it is now known how high that amount should be.
Hello,
The ACI is keen to support Aave users and voted for the first & and intent to vote for the second compensation plan.
There will be zero support for anything else, as said earlier, there’s three ressources important for the DAO, Time, Focus & money in that order.
with currently 183 replies to this topic, mostly noise, and a lot of time invested by two critical for this dao service providers Bgdlabs & chaos labs it’s time to draw a line in the sand.
Second compensation is the last that will get any ACI support. the DAO did the right thing and did leagues above the other party involved in term of responsability taken, analysis was done, explanations provided, compensations delivered.
if some users think compensations are unfair, they’re welcomed to knock on AMPL door from now on.
5 Likes
Guys, Marc is right, - its not AAVE mistake, but AMPL. We should be thankful for what they agreed to pay us as a compensation. If they would made mistake, sure it would be different. But its AMPL mistake, so lets join AMPL Discord and AMPL forum and speak there.
AAVE team, thank you very much for support and good will to help all victims, hope if there will be any questions about deep mechanics of happened error, and if AMPL team will refuse to agree its exactly their mistake, we could count on your support in this matter. As old AAVE investor, I wish to AAVE project and team only prosperity and everything good <3
5 Likes
The rapid execution of the final distribution proposal and its preceding brief discussion period reflect a troubling disregard for the principles of decentralization and community engagement. The assertion that @bgdlabs and @ChaosLabs have managed the situation exceptionally doesn’t align with the overwhelming sentiment in the community, especially considering the confusion and losses still being faced by AMPL users on Aave.
Labeling the lack of understanding as “ridiculous” overlooks the real difficulties many have with the complexity of the situation, which has been poorly communicated and hastily pushed forward without adequate community input. This approach is not just concerning—it directly contradicts the ethos of equitable and democratic governance.
Moreover, it’s disheartening to see the term “fair” used selectively by service providers while many community members continue to suffer from decisions that appear to favor early withdrawers. This skewed representation of fairness, coupled with the hurried proposal timeline that left no room for substantial discussion or dissent, reveals a significant imbalance in decision-making power, exacerbated by the largest stakeholders driving outcomes in their favor.
This situation merits serious reflection on our processes and the need for a genuinely inclusive approach to decision-making, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered, not just those in control.
Also i want to remind you that I have previously expressed my frustrations with AMPL’s handling of issues several times.
While I appreciate the efforts to clarify the distribution model and the associated numbers, the core issue for many affected community members isn’t just about agreeing or disagreeing with the model. It’s crucial to acknowledge that the primary concern lies with the incorrect virtual balances displayed, which significantly influenced investors’ decisions.
Moreover, it’s evident that those who withdrew their funds early gained an unfair advantage, which hasn’t been sufficiently addressed in the proposed solution. This imbalance in how the situation has been handled not only affects trust but also continues to impact those who were disadvantaged by the timing of their decisions based on the inaccurate information provided.
The focus should not solely be on preventing confusion around the analysis but also on rectifying the disparities that have resulted from these early withdrawals, ensuring a fair and equitable resolution for all impacted parties.
Hello Marc,
While I appreciate the ACI’s intent to support Aave users with the compensation plans, your statement about zero support for further actions post-second compensation raises concerns, especially considering previous statements from Bgdlabs suggesting that new proposals could be considered after the final distribution. This contradiction highlights a troubling inconsistency in the governance process.
Your mention of drawing a line and ending support after the second compensation contradicts the supposed decentralized nature of AAVE. If AAVE is truly decentralized, no single person or small group should have the authority to dictate the finality of support on critical issues. This stance not only undermines the community’s ability to influence ongoing decisions but also suggests a centralized control that is at odds with the principles of decentralized finance.
Furthermore, the arrangement where AAVE is to cover 60% and AMPL 40% of compensations was never open to community input, leaving affected users without a say in a decision that significantly impacts them. We’ve already reached out to AMPL with little success, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts.
It’s crucial to reassess these decisions and their implementation to ensure they align with the community’s needs and the decentralized ethos AAVE claims to uphold. If AAVE truly recognizes a responsibility beyond AMPL’s, why agree to a compensation that puts a greater burden on AAVE unless it acknowledges its platform’s role in the issue?
Dear quantum evolver,
I have also been active in the discord group but have received little to no response. I saw in your responses that you unfortunately have the same experience.
We are delegates in this DAO. Our voice is the voice of hundreds of Aave token holders who trusted us to be their voice in this DAO.
Drawing a line means all further proposals on this topic will receive a NAY vote from the ACI. That’s it; other delegates can vote as they see fit. That’s how a DAO should work.
As a service provider for this DAO is to facilitate proposals, we will do our job if we’re requested to do so.
We had zero problem in the past to create TEMP CHECKS & ARFCs as someone requested our service then vote NAY on the proposal, these two role we have delegate & service provider are completely segregated.
At the ACI, we’re not known for our kindness, compassion, or patience; otherwise, my nickname wouldn’t be “Chainsaw.”
Your opinion on the topic & philosophical arguments matter very little to us.
We supported what we consider fair and will support the second compensation because we are convinced this is fair. Nothing else will have our support. This is our last reply in this thread.
Deal. With. It.
3 Likes
All aAMPL investors join this Discord channel and actively participate - Ampleforth Official
AMPL made a mistake in the code, and they should be held accountable for it
1 Like
As an AMPL investor on the AAVE platform, I am compelled to voice my concerns about the governance processes that have recently unfolded. The rapid pace of decision-making and the handling of community input have left many of us feeling sidelined.
Primary Concerns:
- Superficial Discussion Period: The two-day discussion period for final distribution was merely procedural rather than a real opportunity for engagement. This approach appears to be a formality rather than a genuine attempt to consider community input, which is at odds with the decentralized governance principles promoted by AAVE.
- Financial Impact and Perceived Fairness: The swift push to close discussions and implement the decision has not only caused financial repercussions for many but has also damaged trust in the fairness and transparency of AAVE’s governance.
- Service Provider Role Misalignment: You mentioned that the role of the service provider is to facilitate proposals upon request, yet this final distribution proposal seems to have been made without genuine dialogue with those affected. The fact that you’ve had “zero problems” creating TEMP CHECKS and ARFCs, yet voting ‘NAY’ on them, points to a segmentation of roles that may not truly serve the broader community’s interests.
- Concerns Over Community Handling: Your acknowledgment of not being known for “kindness, compassion, or patience,” and the pride in the nickname “Chainsaw,” underscores a governance style that may prioritize efficiency over equity. This is concerning, especially when it appears that previous rapid decisions have benefited those with early withdrawals, undermining fairness for all.
- Implications for Broader Governance: This approach raises significant concerns about how other tokens and issues might be managed on the platform, especially those with complexities similar to the AMPL contract. If AAVE’s governance practices prioritize speed over community input and fairness, this could suggest a broader pattern that might affect all decisions and tokens under AAVE’s purview, especially those facing similar challenges in the future. This trend could undermine trust in the platform’s commitment to decentralized principles.
- Disregard for Decentralization: Rapidly pushing through decisions with minimal discussion not only shows a lack of regard for meaningful community engagement but also reflects a disdain for the core principles of decentralization. Such actions threaten the foundational ethos of AAVE as a decentralized entity.
- Prioritization of AAVE’s Interests: It is becoming increasingly clear that the interests of AAVE and its immediate stakeholders are being prioritized over the genuine welfare of other tokens and their holders on the platform. This selective focus not only questions the equitable treatment of all community members but also raises doubts about the commitment to a truly decentralized governance structure where every token and investor should have equal standing.
While I recognize that this might not change the current trajectory of decisions, it is crucial that these reflections are noted. The essence of a decentralized platform should be its commitment to genuine dialogue and community-driven decision-making, not just the semblance of it.
Concluding Remark:
“In real decentralized projects, we do not simply ‘deal with it’—we champion a fair and transparent process that respects all voices, ensuring every participant is heard.”
5 Likes
AMPL moderators are deleting mostly all our messages on their Discord… They say that we should discuss this topic here. They are trying to avoid responsibility and transfer it to AAVE.
@AMPL You are great at writing texts, can you please create a Proposal topic and write a message addressed to the AMPL team? Here is the link to their governance forum https://forum.ampleforth.org/
3 Likes
This is disappointing.
I expected much better from the Ampleforth team…
3 Likes
100%. They behaved very incorrectly since Autumn last year, and showed their bad side by ignoring messages. Now they just started deleting them, and this taking into account the fact that all the messages are very constructive and polite. It seems that they are afraid of dialogue.
I am very disappointed in AMPL and if the situation is not resolved, I will tell all my friends about this, to whom I recommended investing in AMPL token 1-3 years ago. If the AMPL team has such an attitude towards investors and other community members, they do not deserve trust and financial success.
7 Likes
@AMPL Are you here? Man, write please some good text here. You do it better than others, skilled good for this
1 Like
Check this 2 threads on AMPL forum, AMPL devs are not responding even there 
Link 1
This AMPL team is truly are ignorant, this is amazing in most terrible way. I can’t believe in this, but it’s reality we faced 
2 Likes
Yeah I’ve had 2-3 messages deleted from the AMPL Discord. Multiple requests to create a dedicated channel have been ignored. They seem to think no more discussion is required even though it was recently published that AMPL was responsible for the code error, and AAVE responsible for not auditing it. Seems the most honest argument that is ignored is that folks want the amount of AMPL deposited plus a moderate return. Not an unreasonable request to be made whole.
No buddy, you did not understand correctly. We didn’t ask them for all our AMPL tokens, and even with some kind of plus bonus. We asked the AMPL team to add more on top, because the AAVE team did not calculate it correctly. I don’t know all the legal specifics, but it seems to me that AAVE did this because they realize that it was firstly because of the AMPL team that this whole situation happened and decided to pay us the minimum because of this. And the AMPL team, instead of taking the initiative and preserving its reputation, did not offer us anything from above as compensation, at least another 300k, so that we would thus receive 60-65% in total, it would be the equivalent amount if we had simply bought AMPL and held it all this time. Instead, they completely ignore us and do not engage in dialogue.
I have already started consulting with lawyers in the USA, they will find out what can be done in this situation. I’ll write the result later. In the meantime, it would be great if someone actually made a post on the AMPL forum with a request to increase our compensation that can be paid from the AMPL reserve fund
2 Likes
I have already made two posts in the past, but received no response, so making a new one is a waste of time, unfortunately.
THIS makes good sense. Maybe they’ll reconsider.
2 Likes