Although I understand the vision of this, I do not agree that HydraDX is the one who should be aware of the entire ecosystem and be buying tokens from each listed parachain to be the "guardians"

from our perspective we can apply various security measures such as oracles, xcm rate limiter, weight caps etc.  And  That's is already being done 🙌

[@Jose Crypto](7NzNFJb2pfy2mZzdS2ky8okkXZL52fn2VAvAsc8jigvCtBec-hydradx) All projects should be doing this and we will be pushing for similar adoption on other projects. We don't expect HDX to be the lone project in the eco supporting this. 

[@Jose Crypto](7NzNFJb2pfy2mZzdS2ky8okkXZL52fn2VAvAsc8jigvCtBec-hydradx) 

Oracles, xcm rate limiter, weight caps only works against a hack where the hacker wants to drain liquidity from the Omnipool.

Another angle is devaluing vDot tho through an attack tho. Which non of the aforementioned will work against, when you have a worthless coin there, because someone minted 1Trillion vDOT and swapped them all back or some shit like this. 

I still don't see why HydraDX( like protocol) should be responsible for it, instead you should talk to the differents groups of users and find the instrested on each parachain 

As I mentioned, what we can do is take all the necessary security measures, which are just being applied, we are on the right track

[@Jose Crypto](7NzNFJb2pfy2mZzdS2ky8okkXZL52fn2VAvAsc8jigvCtBec-hydradx) AFAIK, the plan is to deposit at least $1M of dot into vdot on bifrost. We need to monitor bifrost. HDX should at least be overseeing its own interests, would you not agree? $2000 one time plus $10,000 in treasury owned BNC tokens can make that happen and help the safety/security of the entire network, not just HDX. 

I see what [@Stake Plus](7HpqhyXWkfENVY8RWbkm3buca2pmApgR5yexoqYhB4uK4NWR-hydradx) is getting at with the proposal, and I think it makes sense from a practical standpoint. Putting $10,000 towards Bifrost tokens isn't just about buying tokens; it's a strategic move to spread risk. We're essentially looking to allocate a small amount to help monitor what's going on with Bifrost and keep things stable.

Delegating to Chaos DAO and providing a stipend is, in my view, a sensible way to ensure that the investments are being watched over. We're not talking about big numbers here, but the $8k investment, coupled with the $2k for monitoring services, could go a long way in preventing potential losses with the $1m vDot investment.

I get [@Jose Crypto](7NzNFJb2pfy2mZzdS2ky8okkXZL52fn2VAvAsc8jigvCtBec-hydradx)  concern, but I don't think this is about HydraDX trying to be the guardian of everything. It's more about protecting what we're putting into Bifrost. The $10k downside seems minimal compared to the potential upside of protecting a much larger investment.

So, yeah, I'm in favor of this. It seems like a smart, practical move that reflects our interest in being cautious with our investments. Let's not overthink it; this is about common-sense protection of what we're putting into the Bifrost ecosystem.

In these parachains there are people who get involved with the respective parachains and participate as agents and eyes that are mentioned so much in Governance, HydraDX does not have to do it. That what it is

At least me, like user i do with several parachains that im interested


[@Jose Crypto](7NzNFJb2pfy2mZzdS2ky8okkXZL52fn2VAvAsc8jigvCtBec-hydradx) Someone else can do it is a great path to getting rekt. 

I don't really understand why HydraDX needs to participate in Bifrost governance on its own. The argument that HydraDX is minting vDOT and needs to participate in governance to protect their investments puts Bifrost in a vulnerable position. It is a controversial sentiment that Bifrost can provide a liquid staking solutions but cannot protect their governance. Should other chains acquire BNC tokens? Perhaps the Ethereum community needs to protect the vETH token and participate in governance as well, and etc. 

Partnering with HydraDX and participating in the Hydrate your Treasury initiative does not require other parachains to participate in HydraDX governance. The HydraDX community and protocol take responsibility and precautionary measures to prevent any potential governance or any other potential attack vectors. This should be the case for every other parachain in the ecosystem. We don't need to make things more complicated.

On top of that, as the volume and activity on the HydraDX chain continue to rise over time, a significant amount of BNC tokens could accumulate in POL. These tokens could potentially be used for Bifrost governance. So, why not consider this possibility?

[@JOHNM](7Hhm6foX9tBP9uHqfngQ59RDm5u6HSxgpLanGStpMTXM5pbZ-hydradx) Why does protecting an investment put Bifrost in a vulnerable position? You didn't elaborate. Anyone who is putting $1M or more should probably be protecting their investment. This is different than Bifrost using their own treasury funds to acquire ETH. The ETH foundation didn't deposit the ETH into Bifrost, otherwise, yes, they should. The idea that spending 1% of the total investment on some sort of oversight is not controversial. What is controversial is making such a large investment without it. 

[@Stake Plus](7HpqhyXWkfENVY8RWbkm3buca2pmApgR5yexoqYhB4uK4NWR-hydradx) The cooperation between HydraDX and Bifrost should serve as a great example of XCM use-case for other parachains in the ecosystem. Indeed, the level of investment is significant and should be highlighted as a showcase of collaboration and trust in the ecosystem. 

However, the proposed acquiring BNC tokens in the way it proposed in this discussion, make the integration questionable in terms of trust and security in Bifrost’s tech. It would mean for other parachains to think twice and consider buying BNC in order to mint vDOT, which is not absolutely necessary. 

That what I meant speaking of vulnerable position for Bifrost. Instead of promoting great XCM use-cases, it would create more doubts in Bifrost as a liquid staking provider, and make further cooperation with liquid staking more cautious.

[@JOHNM](7Hhm6foX9tBP9uHqfngQ59RDm5u6HSxgpLanGStpMTXM5pbZ-hydradx) I don't think that at all. I think that Bifrost should also be monitoring and watching HydraDX governance and systems. These governance systems are social mechanisms that are meant for vested interests to be able to manage the overall network. I would argue that Bifrost's vested interest in HydraDX is greater than any of ours, and similarly the vested interest of HydraDX in Bifrost. It would only make sense for mutual participation. But we're not in Bifrost governance, we're in HydraDX governance, so I'm speaking about this in terms of HydraDX's interests. 

If you advocated for HydraDX to get some parachain tokens to increase their POL owned LP withing omnipool I could understand. 
I don't see why every parachain would have such power over each other, though. Especially that doing this now would give substantial power in decision making against acquiring tokens when there is more users on Polkadot.

In any case I think we could do something of a higher interest for HydraDX with these funds, like staking HDX or DOT, or increasing POL LP shares in the Omnipool, funding projects or granting bounties...

Just my opinion, I'd be curious to hear about the community. 

[@The Tomiest Tom](/user/7MB38LjXc23RN5G7PUN8ALC4TdEorcVw4C1hhn42dV4JV6E3) The reason why each parachain should participate in other parachain's governance is due to their vested interests in the networks. Anyone (Person or Project) with a significant vested interest in another network should be actively participating in each other's governance. Bifrost should indeed be here on HydraDX along with Centrifuge and the other parachains we've accepted liquidity from. 

The proposal titled "Don't get Rekt" emphasizes the critical need for governance participation in HydraDX, especially in light of the upcoming integration of 700K BNC tokens from Bifrost. Highlighting a potential risk from unmonitored proposals, it recommends a strategic investment of $10,000 in Bifrost tokens over 14 days, delegation to Chaos DAO, and a stipend of $2,000 to Chaos DAO for their monitoring and bot development. These actions aim to protect liquidity and underscore the importance of vigilant oversight to prevent significant financial loss within the ecosystem.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16_cBMZva2ahPtqeo1BtBZz71agw1VHe_VSqZ_3RZ2zk/edit?usp=sharing



- The proposal is about a platform called HydraDX and the need for people to participate in its governance.
- There is a risk of losing money if proposals are not monitored carefully.
- The proposal suggests investing $10,000 in Bifrost tokens over 14 days and delegating to Chaos DAO.
- Chaos DAO will receive a stipend of $2,000 for monitoring and bot development.
- These actions will help protect the platform's liquidity and prevent financial loss.

Don't get Rekt - Protecting HydraDX interests across the polkadot ecosystem