Summary of Proposal
this proposal is about an honest mistake that was made during the process of a token upgrade of CDT to SSV.
CDT tokens were sent to the SSV token upgrade contract with a “Transfer” function instead of “Convert” function, thus making those CDT tokens lost in the contract without the issuance of new SSV tokens back to the sender’s address as should have been.
The transaction was made a few days ago, and can be seen below:
My proposal is basically to allow the ssv DAO to issue back to the sender’s address (0x697302628be3dd222da2c817b405c561ac25fdea) the appropriate amount according to the original CDT → SSV token upgrade process.
According to the above mentioned transaction, a total of 214,691 CDT tokens were transferred to the SSV contract, which applies for 2,146.91 SSV tokens (1:100)
So a total of 2,146.91 SSV tokens should be issued to the address 0x697302628be3dd222da2c817b405c561ac25fdea
Non-technical ELI5 of proposal
A total of 2,146.91 SSV tokens should be issued to the address 0x697302628be3dd222da2c817b405c561ac25fdea due to wrongly sent CDT tokens to the ssv token upgrade contract which are now lost in the contract.
Motivation for Proposing
Since this was a complete honest mistake by the owner of the address (me basically) I believe this is the right thing to do. Also, as a 5 year veteran as an investor and believer in the SSV team (since way back in the old good days of CoinDash) , supporting of this proposal would be highly appreciated.
Reasons supporting the proposal
As mentioned above, due to an honest mistake I would sincerely highly appreciate your support on this proposal.
Reasons against the proposal
The only reason that could be in order to vote against this proposal, is from tokenomic perspective. you would want to vote against this if you wouldnt like to inflate the supply of the SSV token. which i could completely understand. but this wont be the right thing to do as i believe that the SSV dao community consists of a good people and this would be a great way to test this statement
- Would you be in favor?
- Would you not be in favor?