I would like to thank @abcoathup , @tms1337 and @fulldecent for your valuable insight and feedback. We (as a very small “grassroots” movement of affected individual users) are learning a ton from your insights on top off shifting through all the previous discussion that has already taken place on several platforms before. It is helping us theorize about potential possible solutions that hopefully the whole of the community could support.
I sincerely hope you are willing to engage with us further in the future and provide more valuable feedback and insight. You have my thanks!
Dear @fulldecent, I 100% understand your reply and we’ve studied the 867 and 999 extensively to not repeat the mistakes committed there. Before we put out an EIP draft (which we have 3 versions of thus far), we’d like to explore avenues that do NOT touch immutability or decentralization.
As a group of victims, we’re only self-organized and relying on each other’s help on Discord and our ideas and scope of understanding is both very individually varied as well as technically limited (we have some devs, some investors, some traders, some entrepreneurs, some regular joes, etc.).
I was expecting a “no” but was hoping for a “No, you cannot do this. BUT what you could do is: …”
You already thought out-of-the box with 721… is there no option C here?
In any case… thanks a million for your respons William, it means a great lot to hear your stance.
Thanks for pitching in…the positivity you bring to our group is the energy that prevents us to lose momentum in tough moments like this :)) is it time to get vulnerable and show them the EIP draft(s) we’ve been doing and submit it for a roast?
You are very welcome. And happy to share the “no, but” answer!
Let’s think about the scope. Are we looking for a fix for one project that can be thought about and replicated else where? Are we looking for a committee to write some wrongs and bring a human touch—but in a singleton organization?
Depending on the details… Perhaps you are just looking for a way to recognize onchain the people affected by this locking. Is there a list of them? Does that need to be generated off-chain? Can it be validated on-chain, for example by using the state root (globally or for a specific address?) and then anybody can provide Merkle inclusion proofs against that root?
Best case is that yes this is all possible. Then what you can do is allow people to mint a new RETH (recovered-eth) token. Probably ERC-1155. Use DeFi to add liquidity with other pairs. You could cap the upper bound of the price at 1 RETH = 1 ETH. And then use these tokens like any other token. You could bid with them to buy NFTs. And people could accept those bids. You would need to convince people that they are valuable. You may or may not achieve this by convincing people to never accept less than 1 ETH worth of value for their 1 RETH.
And if all that worked, you would have a full economic recovery for all the affected people, participating in a community of other people that also support this proposal and do business with you.
Fellow ethereum recovery enthusiast here. I realize there is much debate about who would vote and who decides which ether would be returned, but what if we could capture some cases that don’t need a vote?
For example, SWIM is trying to recover ethereum that they sent to an exchange, but they fat fingered two of the numbers (or hit up/down on their keyboard accidentally before sending), resulting in the eth being sent to an address ending in 79 rather than 80. No one owns this address, it has no activity for years, and is currently unrecoverable.
To at least get some movement on the recovery mechanisms in ethereum, I am interested to hear any opinions on having a criteria that evaluates the activity of an address, activity of the sender to nearby addresses that weren’t fat fingered, and have a return to sender functionality for cases like this?