hi @Taxguy, imho this is not being swept under no rug. there has not been any asset recovery from Silo / Stream - the DAO treasury cannot support for any reimbursement as it stands right now. I have not seen any other push in governance bringing up opinions, ideas, proposals → that is the reason why we can see decrease in activity in this thread.
This thread has gone quiet for over two weeks, and we’re now ~6 months out from the incident with no on-chain SIP, no defined %, and no timeline. I hope we can move from sentiment back to commitments.
I want to acknowledge the positive: the discussion has shifted from SUMR-denominated comp toward USDC-based reimbursement funded from a share of protocol revenue. That’s the right direction — affected lenders deposited USDC into a “Lower Risk” vault and should be made whole in the asset they deposited, not handed price risk on a freshly-traded token.
But a principle without numbers is not a plan. To convert this into something executable, I’m asking the @Recognized_Delegates and team to commit to four concrete points:
- A firm date for a reimbursement SIP to be posted on-chain.
- The funding mechanism in numbers: what fixed % of monthly protocol revenue is earmarked, and to which pool.
- Confirmation that the baseline is principal-protected at minimum 84% of USDC-equivalent loss — i.e. the counterfactual “vault worked as designed” outcome — not capped by token price.
- A public tracker so affected lenders can see accrual and projected completion.
One thing we need to be honest about: the monthly USDC paid to ALL SUMR stakers has run roughly $8.7k (Jan) → $5.6k (Feb) → $4.9k (Mar) → $3.9k (Apr). If reimbursement is funded from a slice of revenue at that scale, completion is measured in years unless a meaningful, ring-fenced percentage is committed up front. Can we please model this openly?
Happy to support a fair, executable proposal. But “directionally agreed” has now lasted six months. Let’s set the date.
2 Likes
Hi @jensei
Please update us on what steps SummerFi are currently taking to make this right. As many posters have noted, just because SummerFi cannot do a full 100% USDC reimbursement right this minute, this does not mean that the issue need be postponed indefinitely. We would feel much better knowing that something, rather than nothing, is being done (e.g., reimbursing 5% per month). Many well-considered potential solutions have been shared in the forums.
Side question: Is SummerFi advocating for its users and putting any pressure on the curators/managers of the vault - BlockAnalitica etc - for them to do their part in making this right? Again, any lack of favorable response from these third parties need not be a reason to delay making an action plan - this can of course be done in parallel!
1 Like
Back on February 2nd I have posted a reply in this thread outlining different scenarios:
Since then the TVL of the protocol has halved and therefore cut the annualized revenue. Similarly, the amount of SUMR token in treasury has decreased by around 40M SUMR. This was all modeled openly and I could not see a way out of this without direct asset recovery from Stables Labs / Silo - that would go back to the depositors. This has not occurred and I am not aware of any such recovery as of now.
I am more than happy to hear other @Recognized_Delegates ideas, thoughts and comments; but right now I do not have anything more to add here, unfortunately.
Thanks for your reply, Jensei. I was of course hoping for some positive developments/news given that your post is from 4 months ago.
Re: the third parties - Stables Labs, Silo, BlockAnalitica etc - has SummerFi been advocating assertively for us, its users? Have you guys asked them to come to the table? Has there been any openness to collaborate with SummerFI on a solution?
Even a small contribution from one of the third parties would certainly make a solution more achievable. It’d be great to know this avenue is being pursued.
1 Like
Hi @dogman, in terms of the 3rd parties Labs Co did what they could in terms of Stables Labs and Silo as well as running a liquidity checker on top of that market to be first to withdraw when possible. At one point it became clear that the underlying responsibility is held with them and until the recovery of those assets would become apparent there is not much more to be done. I have personally reached out to @BlockAnalitica who did not show interest to contribute to the reimbursement. They did though expressed potential interest in some future insurance fund establishment.
Maybe someone from @BlockAnalitica can express their thoughts here.
I am one of the users affected by the Arbitrum USDC Vault incident and suffered a loss of approximately 5,150 USDC as a result of the USDX/sUSDX bad debt situation.
Many months have now passed since the incident. The community has discussed several reimbursement options, including the possibility of compensation through SUMR tokens, but affected users are still waiting for a concrete decision and a clear path forward.
I understand that this is a complex governance matter and that the DAO must carefully evaluate the implications of any reimbursement proposal. However, from the perspective of affected users, the continued lack of a definitive resolution is becoming increasingly concerning.
I respectfully ask the Summer team, delegates, and governance participants to provide a concrete update regarding the current status of the reimbursement discussions. If reimbursement is still being considered, it would be helpful to know the expected next steps, timeline, and decision-making process.
Affected users have shown patience and have continued to engage constructively with the community. We would greatly appreciate a clear indication of how and when this matter is expected to be resolved.
Thank you for your time and for any update you can provide.
1 Like
Never did get a @BlockAnalitica response here, did we?
Might be time to drop BA, imho, after the 2nd exploit of a BA-managed “Lower Risk Vault”:
Good luck to all those affected. If precedent is any indication, it’s time to mark your losses. With hopes of restitution dashed now months since the Arbitrum USDC vault incident, the least we can fight for is accountability.
I understand that there has been no asset recovery from Silo or Stables Labs, and that the DAO treasury is currently unable to fully reimburse affected users. I also understand that reimbursement is a difficult decision.
However, what concerns many of us now is the lack of a clear path forward.
Rather than letting this discussion gradually lose momentum, could the DAO please outline the next concrete steps? For example:
- Is there still an intention to move this RFC to a formal SIP, even if the proposed reimbursement is partial or conditional?
- If not, what specific conditions would need to be met before a DAO vote could take place?
- Is there an active effort to pursue recovery from Silo, Stables Labs, or any other third parties, and can the community receive periodic updates on those efforts?
- Could the DAO publish a roadmap or timeline, even if the timeline is long, so affected users know what to expect?
If the protocol succeeds over the next five years, generating millions of dollars in fees, does the DAO believe users who suffered losses due to this incident should permanently bear 100% of the cost while the protocol retains all future upside? If not, what long-term mechanism would the DAO consider to align recovery with future protocol success?
I believe most affected users understand that immediate reimbursement may not be financially possible and we have been patient enough . What is difficult is the uncertainty. Even a continuous update stating would be much better than months of silence.
I still believe transparency and continued communication are essential to maintaining trust in the protocol. I hope the DAO and delegates can help move this discussion toward concrete next steps, even if the final resolution takes longer.
2 Likes
Hi, I have a position affected by the Silo susdx/usdc (127) market offboarding from the Arbitrum USDC Vault (SIP2.39). Following up — is there any update on timeline or mechanism for reimbursement?
Dear Summer team and governance delegates,
I would appreciate some clarification regarding the current status of the Arbitrum USDC Vault (OLD) reimbursement proposal.
Several months have passed since the RFC was opened, and many affected users, myself included, are still waiting for a clear update. In my case, I lost approximately 5,150 USDC as a result of the USDX/sUSDX bad debt incident.
Could the team please clarify whether RFC 582 is still considered active and whether there is still an intention to move forward with a formal SIP, or whether the reimbursement proposal has been put on hold or abandoned?
I also understand that the protocol has recently faced another security incident, and I sincerely hope that all affected users receive a fair solution. At the same time, I believe it would be important to ensure consistency across governance decisions. If reimbursement mechanisms are being considered for newer incidents, it would be reassuring for those of us affected by the earlier Arbitrum USDC Vault incident to understand how our case fits into the overall approach and whether both situations could be evaluated under a consistent compensation framework.
I am not asking for preferential treatment—only for clarity, transparency, and a concrete update on the current status of our case.
Thank you for your time, and I appreciate any information the team or the delegates can share.
1 Like
Hi, and thank you for a measured message on a topic that has caused real harm to real people. Let me be as clear as I can on each of your questions.
Is [RFC] Arbitrum USDC Vault (OLD) User Reimbursement still active, or on hold / abandoned?
Neither “moving to a SIP” nor “abandoned” describes it accurately. The honest status is: open, but paused, and never promoted to a SIP. It has not been formally closed, but under current conditions no contributor or delegate has been able to put a fundable proposal in front of governance.
The reason is the one laid out in the thread, and it hasn’t changed. The loss is ~$1.49M USDC across affected depositors. A reimbursement denominated in SUMR at current price and liquidity would require selling more SUMR than the entire DAO treasury holds, crashing the very asset used to pay you, so recipients would receive cents on the dollar. A reimbursement streamed from protocol revenue, at today’s revenue, is a multi-decade horizon. These are arithmetics that I posted openly before.
What that leaves as genuinely realistic is a trigger-based path rather than a calendar date: reopening a concrete proposal if and when the debt receipts the DAO still holds against Silo become recoverable at the Silo level. Nothing has triggered yet, which is the frustrating but truthful state.
On consistency with the July 6 incident
This is a fair question and I want to answer it precisely, because the two situations look similar but the mechanics differ in a way that matters. The July 6 remediation is largely about returning the affected vaults’ own remaining, reclaimable USDC, the capital still sitting in asynchronous-withdrawal arks to those vaults’ depositors, minus the attacker’s shares, via a Merkle distribution. It is asset return, not the DAO treasury funding losses out of pocket, which has been approved, executed, and is in progress now.
Your case is different in one hard respect: the Arbitrum loss became bad debt held at Silo, so there is no pool of the vault’s own reclaimable assets to hand back. A comparable “return what’s recoverable” mechanism for you depends on a Silo-level recovery that hasn’t materialized. So I can’t honestly tell you the July 6 framework sets a precedent that mechanically applies to you.
I’d also note the DAO is currently working through an operational realignment for the transition period.
- [RFC] Determining the Future Direction of Lazy Summer DAO
- [RFC] Operational Realignment for the Transition Period
… there you can find the latest discussion, polls and more.
Thank you, Jensei, for your detailed response and for clarifying that RFC 582 remains open but is currently paused. I appreciate the transparency regarding the financial constraints and the difficulties involved in finding a viable reimbursement mechanism.
Given this situation, I believe the most important question for the affected users now is what is actually being done to recover the approximately $1.49M of bad debt held at Silo.
Could you please provide an update on the recovery efforts since the incident? In particular, has Summer or the DAO taken any formal legal, contractual, or other action against Silo, Stables Labs, or any other relevant party, and is there currently any indication of whether a partial or substantial recovery is realistically possible?
I would also like to understand how the recovery rights / “receipts” mentioned previously will be handled if the DAO proceeds with the operational transition or a possible wind-down. Will these claims be formally preserved and managed for the benefit of the affected Arbitrum USDC Vault depositors before any remaining DAO assets are distributed or reassigned?
For those of us who have been waiting since the incident, having a clear picture of what recovery actions are currently being pursued, the realistic prospects of recovering funds, and how those rights will be protected during the DAO’s transition would be extremely valuable.
Thank you again for engaging with the affected users.
3 Likes
It appears, after the July 6th incident, the Lazy Summer DAO is winding down. Is that the correct understanding?
Who does this leave as the representative party for any future collections?
Where do other Summer creditors who lost money keep on chatting or coordinate legal action or recovery attempts?
2 Likes
Thanks Bozer76 for asking this question. I would like to hear that too!