Mcman

0xcrypto I actually posted two responses and one that addresses the bug bounty is not approved conveniently. I would wait for a full response to be published. Audit report does not indicate the risk of a rugpull. Vendor team has no and never had way to pull funds out of the protocol.

On a separate matter, I am compelled to urge individuals to examine the registration date of the account "citizen_wayne" and review the posts made by this user since then. It is evident that this account was established with the sole purpose of undermining our proposal and exclusively expressing praise for the counter-party. I strongly encourage anyone who comes across this statement to assess the user's posting history and the timing of their contributions, as it becomes apparent that their primary concern lies elsewhere, rather than ensuring the safety of DAO treasury. If that were not the case, this individual would be posing similar questions and concerns regarding the other proposal, which is less battle-tested and established. However, this user appears to show no interest in that regard.

We will not further engage in the conversations with his user, as we see time and time again those are not constructive and our points are simply ignored. Other than that we are always open for constructive criticism and we hope we demonstrated that.

citizen_wayne I believe you may be placing excessive reliance on bug bounties. As an auditor myself, I can assure you that in the majority of cases, individuals are either criminals or they are not. If you were a member of security groups on TG, you would observe that white-hat hackers often attempt to establish indirect contact with the team if direct contact proves unsuccessful. They will go a long way because they believe that is the right thing to do. For individuals who are not criminals, clicking a single button on our home page is actually a straightforward task. In fact, our process is simpler compared to many other platforms like Immunefi, which require a proof of concept right from the start. We thoroughly review all reports we receive. That being said, we genuinely appreciate your feedback and will examine the possibility of establishing a more formal program once our treasury is more firmly established. Regarding the excerpt from the report you have provided, this matter has been discussed with the Zelic team. With all due respect, when protocols are compromised, individuals such as yourself are often the first to express dissatisfaction with the team's perceived lack of vigilance in pausing operations. To address the specific concern raised in the report, repayments and other operations are paused independently. This allows us to enable individuals to repay while keeping the rest of operations paused if needed for further investigation. Furthermore, it is important to note that Vendor V2 does not profit from defaults, so there is no incentive for us to engage in such behavior. The only party that would benefit from defaults is OlympusDAO, as they would receive significant default amounts. There is nothing for us to gain from such actions except damaging our hard-earned reputation and the protocol we have diligently built.

Don_G_Lover Yeah that's reasonable. I agree, an OHM Vendor pool on Arbitrum would give easier access to smaller players in the community ️

Given the strong interest in a Clearinghouse, I believe Arbitrum is the right place for this deployment.

This would allow smaller holders access to capital on an L2.