NEED HELP from team / dai team community

Developers
#1

So i am not a newbie to crypto
i know about checking addresses and stuff, but well, even monkey fall from tree

I accidentally sent dai to dai contract address, as opposed to my coinbase account

it was something stupid i know,
i went to get the address to send to from CB, i copied, i scrolled down in metamask to get to the dai token so i could send
i couldnt / didnt see it in my list of tokens, so i had to add it,

I go to etherscan, get the contract addy, and added token- but when i scrolled down i saw that dai was there now at the bottom… so i proceeded as planned and just simply forgot to go back to CB and re-copy the address to wallet

so off it went to the dai contract address…:frowning:
I have read lots on line about many others having done this.

But i come here in peace. :slight_smile:

I just want to know like who’s decision it is that maybe could go through the process of having send the dai back?? or considering they are now burnt (along with the 50K other dai that has been sent to the contract) - that who is the person, or group of people that make the decision to mint the dai that has been, for all-intense-and-purposes burnt, and sent back to originating address/es???

what would the people need to do, because i am sure that the other people that have done similar, given there is 50K dai sitting on contract address, would appreciate their dai being returned

so what motions need to be done, who is it that one could approach or just who makes those types of decisions?

heres an idea, maybe dai team can do even something like going through the process/effort of burning/minting … and maybe charging a fee to those that wish their coins to be returned >??? 10% 20% idk, id be more than willing to have like a service fee of x%, its more-so a thing to me of principle, versus just needing the money back, those were mine, they did belong to me, and i just want them back. i know crypto can be brutal and very unforgiving, but idk i just didnt/dont know what else to do or where to go, so came here.

I am a regular person, not rich, i was going to use that dai to pay bills. it was dai i was going to send to bank account to pay mortgage last week, i have children and wife i need support
in the grand scheme of things it is not a lot of dai, but it was enough to make me want to investigate and see what would one have to do to make the dai be returned.

?? please it is very important to me !! and i suspect important to the many others that have also sent dai by accident to the contract address. !!

:slight_smile: please

#2

I am sorry to say Dai sent to the Dai contract address cannot be recovered.

1 Like
#3

yes, no i get that, 110%, that dai is essentially burnt- like i mentioned in my initial post

the discussion im trying to have is that given that fact- the dai is essentially burnt
i see in the code move and transfer functions, I figure that reaching out to the support/developing team surrounding this contract. and that given they have the ability to mint and burn Dai - perhaps they could leave those 50k of dai in the contract there as ‘burned’, then simply mint new and send back to those originating address/es of the many many people that had accidentally sent to contract address?

so the question/discussion i would like to have is what would it take to mint the amount of dai to satisfy that request to send back the dai to the originating address/es…? even if for a fee imposed to then be given to community or something - idk

i mean there must be a person or group of people that if they felt it was important enough to return ppls dai back to them, they could do that, and what would that look like- the process, the voting, the effort etc etc

#4

I have also misinterpreted your original post. So you are basically asking:

Khameleon is asking:

MakerDAO, could you please print some DAI for me?

I think this is, after all, not a ridiculous question. And perhaps we should really think about it.

It has been discussed earlier (in the chat) that lost DAI (like the ones lost by Khameleon) have some influence on the peg and push the peg above 1.0.

This is because, to close their CDPs, people need to get DAI, but there are less than intended available DAI in the market, and this pushes the price up.

#5

yes, basically thats it, we know the dai is burnt having been sent to contract address,

maybe the powers that be, go thru process of having those dai minted and just sent back to originating address

maybe even a fee attached to it/the process, idk

but i suspect the code could be written easily enough, or maybe it already is.

im not that savvy. But it does affect the pegged price, and it will only get worse, if these mistakes continue to happen.

thank you for your attention and idk just kind of makes sense. i suspect there could even be code written that after the dai is returned, that if it were to happen again, that it automatically resends it back. Like a boom-a-rang code. and it would just be a mechanism that helps keep the pegged price.
but again, im not that savvy.

#6

so hypothetically - just curious as i have no clue…
if something like this were to take place
what would have to happen as a beginning step? does it need voting or something, group discussion?

i understand it wouldn’t happen like this week, but could it maybe be something in git-hub as a request to be worked on; frankly i just have no clue. but am curious if there is anything i can do to help… happy to lick stamps, set up chairs and tables, make coffee. :slight_smile:

out of curiosity, I was interested to see how much / if anyone had done same as i did since i did it, like 3-4 days ago… wow, i was floored, there were like on average 4-5 tx per day of ppl sending in dai- in total there is just under 1% of the dai supply in the contract ‘burnt’ presently

and it is not like the people are getting something that didn’t/doesn’t belong to them, it did, it still does, but they just can not access it. But there are 12 pages of ppl sending dai into the contract - and that surely has an adverse affect on the pegging of 1$ i suspect.

i realize/sense you understand the more intimate details of what were talking about but how or what needs to happen -but what would be like the first step? needs to be voted on? idk just curious really

thank you!

#7

Hi, @Khameleon. This is an interesting take.
There are different approaches to get a feeling of what MKR holders would like (they are the ones voting for changes) but I think that eventually this will need a MIP (Maker Improvement Proposal) to make a change to the protocol.

I would advice starting with a written post that clearly outlines the advantages + a poll to measure the sentiment.

Probably @LongForWisdom has a better idea on how to proceed.

1 Like
#8

Yeah. So maybe an informal poll is the best way to start? I think it would be better to get some idea of the community feeling before putting more effort into a proposal.

After that I’d suggest a declaration of intent.

You can see some details of these here: MakerDAO Standard Governance Processes
(Note that signal request != informal poll)

I would say that I think this proposal is unlikely to gain traction, at least without some development work. Maker Governance can’t just mint unbacked DAI from nothing without paying for it. We can send DAI to those that sent DAI to the contract, but that DAI would get taken out of the Protocol reserves, which belong to all MKR Holders. So you’re essentially asking MKR Holders to reimburse you out of pocket.

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of an easy way of managing the situation in such a way that allows the DAI to be returned without some party paying for it.

#9

Interesting.

My impression was that:

  • the Dai sent to the contract was (effectively) burnt.
  • we could check in the blockchain if Dai was actually sent to the contract (and the originating wallet).

So I don’t think that minted Dai would count as “unbacked”.
You are right that you would probably need to create a function that mints Dai manually, so it probably would weaken the security of the system.

#10

Correct.

The protocol currently has no way of understanding that the DAI in the DAI contract is actually burnt and inaccessible. This is the main problem.

We already have this. It’s called the suck function and it allows governance to mint DAI and send it to an address, however, this DAI is unbacked, which means in order to balance the system, the DAI is then subtracted from the surplus buffer and potentially trigger FLOP auctions if the DAI is not available.

As far as I understand there is no way for us to tell the protocol that some old backed DAI is now inaccessible and that this new DAI doesn’t need to be backed (because it’s backed by the collateral that was backing the old inaccessible DAI.)

#11

So i suppose for the time being, until this points you brought up get resolved or worked out, maybe on holding pattern?

but the question i have, is that given there is about .5% the circulation DAI (if i did math right), locked in contract address… Is it safe to say that DAI will/could never be $1.00 even-steven because of that?

I am just curious bc i have an order on Coinbase to buy at 1.00, and it has there for like months, , and it has not been filled…so i suspect that it will never get filled, unless all the DAI’s out in circ? is this true or the case then? idk just a thought i had.

i do hope that there could be some way to get that DAI back in circulation, not just for me, but the many ppl that had sent upwards of 52K DAI, and something written so that if were to happen again, it maybe gets rejected - or maybe it could be done at the third party level like with the different wallet platforms, like if someone was to put a contract address in address to send to, maybe Metamask alerts sender to the fact that a contract address has been entered as the recipient? idk where or how would be the best way…of course with Metamask it would prevent it from being sent to any contract address, not just DAI, but/bc some times ppl do want to send to contract address, but maybe just a warning bubble to alert the sender that you are sending to contract address,

idk if DAI has ever discussed or thought about maybe making a DAI2, as an upgrade to code and do swap 1:1, or whatever… BUT if that were to happen, i would only ask that Maker/DAO team please don’t forget about all the DAI in the contract- and figure out way to get that back to people. i know crypto is very unforgiving, i know and realize that, but in the same breath it is one of its Achilles heels in becoming ‘mainstream’.

but idk, it was a lot of DAI to me, so it really left a mark and just hate to see it go / be lost.

thx guys for really actually listening and what appears to have been seriously considered. i do totally appreciate that- thanks!

#12

It’s far less than 0.5%, and no, it doesn’t mean DAI can never equal $1.

It is possible that we upgrade at some point. I don’t think it’s likely, especially in the next few years, but it is possible. If we do, I’ll be one of those pushing for a change to the contract to bounce ERC20 tokens accidently sent to the contract.

1 Like
#13

so was thinking some more about this
and perhaps - like until something more solid / definitive comes into play…
maybe - from the protocol reserves, it could be just ‘chalked off’ / considered an indefinite loan from the reserves pool to the addresses that sent dai to contract. it would at least put it back in circ, and those dai holders would appreciate it i suspect…Just a way ‘on paper’ to justify the transfer … and then when the time comes that an upgrade/swap is executed, or some way is figured out how to get that dai un-burnt it is written in the code that it doesnt go to addresses, it goes back to the dai protocol reserves.

idk just thinking out loud… I am sure you can appreciate my eagerness to get my dai back, but i am one of the smaller folks that sent dai in to contract and i wonder / concern / empathize for the other people that sent wayyy more than I. i wonder how they haven’t come here to see or try to have this discussion, why am i the only one to be concerned? idk maybe im just not as flush as most and it left more of mark with me than other folks, idk. i just feel a closed mouth doesnt get fed, doesnt hurt to ask i guess. just so sad i lost north of 400$ - in big picture not a whole hell of lot money, but for a dumb mistake like this idk, just seems like there shoulda been/coulda been a mechanism to prevent it. But thats crypto and as we all know it is very unforgiving

#14

Just more evidence that the new crypto DEVgen is all about the score and not about the people. The average person (non-techie) should be afforded the basics of error redundancy without having to read through fine print. Hell, Maker and Dai might as well be a coin faucet with t&c like that…lol. I’ll never contract into Dai again after my $1.75 debacle that you see yourself in right now. Any person of less than average financial knowledge would consider that practice damn near predatory…dope, ETH, and EC20 oh so horrible. There HAS to be a bett3r and mo cost effective way…

#15

Seems like a broad and sweeping statement without much backing it up.

I agree with the general point you’re making (having error-safe contracts where possible is sensible). In the future please try to phrase your comments in a more constructive way and refrain from implying predatory practices where none exist.

2 Likes
#16

i agree, tbh i couldnt make heads/tails of what he was saying or trying to say

thx longforwisdom

1 Like