Your interpretation of symmetry is fairly sketchy, in my view, for several reasons:
- MKR Token Holders already suffered the downside from this in the form of FLOP auctions. Recapitalising the system is the only thing MKR Token Holders are obligated to pay for (by design).
- It’s also worth mentioning that UI’s in some cases do sell services that benefit from network growth (increased customer base.) I believe DeFi Saver charges for one or more of their services, though I forget which.
- You could also argue that the Ethereum network benefits from the DeFi projects built on top of it.
It may be beneficial for MKR Token Holders to pay some amount of compensation for Vault Holders in this situation, but they certainly aren’t obligated to do so.
I appreciate you are all frustrated, but I’m doing as much as possible to approach this from a position of objectivity and trying to figure out how much compensation MKR Token Holders are actually responsible for rather than giving a knee-jerk response.
Why? Are MKR Token Holders responsible for the expectations of Vault Holders? 24.67% is the theoretical maximum in a system that relies on auctions, it’s not a reasonable assumption to receive that much back. A reasonable assumption is based on historical return in the case of liquidations (17.7%), a reasonable assumption given what was possibly a once or twice in a lifetime event is 11%. Splitting the difference between the reasonable assumption given the situation and what was actually received seems like the fairest outcome to me given that the unprecedented market situation was made worse by insufficiently defensive auction parameters (the thing that MKR Token Holders are actually responsible for).
Like if anyone can provide a solid argument as to why MKR Token Holders are responsible for compensating the full amount given their role in Black Thursday, please share it. Note that I’m talking about responsibility, not what may or may not make sense given PR issues.