I am Kyrie, a Polkadot ecosystem user for six years. First, I would like to thank Mr. Li from Opensquare for helping me learn how to use Subsquare to initiate a referendum. Second, I hope the community can approve my request. Polkadot ecosystem users should not be affected by the Hyperbridge incident, just as vDOT on Hydration has not experienced any price discrepancies.

Hi guys,

Thomas from Bifrost.

Interlay's protocol isn't using any Oracles provided by Bifrost. Currently, only Hydration should be using them within the Polkadot ecosystem.

Considering Interlay's lend/borrow protocol being almost without any liquidity, without proper price feeding and without any clear guidance from any Interlay team member, using the protocol is at risk.

We're sorry to discover that some users were impacted by liquidations resulting from the Hyperbridge's exploit while the official vDOT fair price remained consistant.
Hydration's users didn't have any consequences in comparison.

[@SUPERDUPONT](wdCrbkPfqq1BtPtfCXDkRbfy1vS7SW8KniEwe7iGkngVcp1rT-interlay) 
Thank you, Thomas.

I think this is incorrect and might cause some issues with the system accounting. If possible I'd recommend asking the TC to cancel this referendum and re-submit using this extrinsic: https://github.com/interlay/interbtc/blob/c645294b3257d5a0e37b2613e55b90380100ea9f/crates/loans/src/lib.rs#L1195

[@wdCq...G1kb](wdCqxq8RoyA9eW7AMcWxm11CMqcr3avEXj8V661VnUZpoG1kb-interlay) 
This current proposal is technically incorrect and should be downvoted, as it may cause issues with system accounting (it is moving out funds from the wrong system account).

You can resubmit the proposal using the extrinsic above which takes the refund amount out of the protocol reserves that were built up via lending fees. This is a cleaner approach and avoids accounting errors. 

Then the INTR community can vote on whether or not to grant a refund from the protocol treasury. 




The proposal has technical errors. Vote NAY; it will be resubmitted according to the team's approach.