In need of some urgent assistance


I’m new to this forum and was trying to DM an admin but couldn’t seem to figure it out so I’m going to write a post instead.

I have been trying to get help for this situation for 2 weeks now from others but been struggling to get help.

Basically, I accidentally sent $35k DAI to the MATIC contract address instead of my MetaMask address.

I understand these mistakes are not reversible, but given how big the amount is, I understand that Maker governs DAI. I understand that this would need to pass through governance, but I can see DAI has a mint and burn function; so I was wondering if this error is possible to be returned to me. I will copy the code

function mint(address usr, uint wad) external auth {
    balanceOf[usr] = add(balanceOf[usr], wad);
    totalSupply    = add(totalSupply, wad);
    emit Transfer(address(0), usr, wad);
function burn(address usr, uint wad) external {
    require(balanceOf[usr] >= wad, "Dai/insufficient-balance");
    if (usr != msg.sender && allowance[usr][msg.sender] != uint(-1)) {
        require(allowance[usr][msg.sender] >= wad, "Dai/insufficient-allowance");
        allowance[usr][msg.sender] = sub(allowance[usr][msg.sender], wad);
    balanceOf[usr] = sub(balanceOf[usr], wad);
    totalSupply    = sub(totalSupply, wad);
    emit Transfer(usr, address(0), wad);

Can some admin help me out here and let me know if governance can approve this and thus burn the tokens from the matic contract address and mint them back in my wallet.

Thank you so much for your time; feel free to contact me here or reply to the thread.

  • Tariq


Unfortunate that that has happened. However, as you can see from Dai contract itself, there are several that sent large amounts of Dai to Dai contract and there’s no way to help them at the moment as the protocol can’t just mint additional Dai at will.

However, maybe it’s possible for you to submit a formal governance proposal to mint additional.

Thank you

Here are some previous similar requests. Unfortunately, they didn’t work out.

1 Like


Thanks for the response. How do I submit something like that?


My impression is that there is no strong objection to refunding lost DAIs, but it’s difficult to delimit the boundaries of several different cases.

In this specific case (sending DAIs to the DAI address), I think that:

  1. If some whale user did send 500m by mistake to the DAI-address, we’d probably intervene to refund them. This is because 500m DAI lost would have a negative effect on the peg (despite what @SebVentures correctly said in one of the thread cited above about the role of the PSM in this).
    So it seems fair to intervene also for non-whales.
  2. There is little controversy in this specific situation (e.g., “what if these DAI’s are not really lost, etc”) since there are no 3rd parties involved here.

For the above reasons I think there is space for trying to push this refund process forward.

@tariq.haji my suggestion to you is to enter the MakerDAO chat, and ask around for guidelines on how to make a forum poll/proposal. In that proposal you should try to advocate that it is a good idea to develop the tools to revert transactions that sent DAIs to the DAI-address. Keep in mind that, since this will likely involve some smart-contract development/assistance, this might take months.