We sincerely ask that the remaining funds be returned as soon as possible, in a secure and responsible manner. We are not seeking anything more—only what rightfully belongs to those affected. Swift and thoughtful action would mean a great deal to everyone who has been patiently waiting and deeply impacted.
@SeiyaChida would it be possible to share what the team has been doing yesterday and today related to the reimbursement and next steps.
Let’s ensure we share every step with the community to build further back the trust for next votings to happen. I’m looking forward learning more about the progress 
Yes, that is correct. However, on-chain voting is only required for the transfer of ASTR. Voting on the repayment options themselves does not need to be conducted on-chain, nor does it need to be binding through on-chain mechanisms—because the repayment process itself is not fully executed on-chain.
Therefore, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, it is not necessary to insist on reaching an on-chain consensus regarding the repayment model.
At present, many community members are dissatisfied with the outcome of the previous off-chain vote. While the desire to move forward quickly is certainly understandable on both sides, the distortions caused by that process have ultimately made resolution more difficult.
We need a voting process that the community can genuinely accept. If we use ASTR-based on-chain voting, many of the victims likely do not hold enough ASTR, making it hard for their voices to be reflected. Can such a vote really produce an acceptable outcome? I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the process.
If we use Snapshot, the idea would be to issue a dedicated voting token on Astar. There’s no need for this to occur on Soneium.
Yes, there’s a chance of miscalculation, and that could certainly cause backlash. But honestly, at this point, I think it’s too late to worry about that. Things are unlikely to get worse.
Moreover, if we proceed with the snapshot-based model, such calculations will eventually be necessary regardless. In that sense, whether we do the calculations now for governance purposes or later for repayments, it’s essentially the same work. Of course, if we calculate now and then the model changes, the results might go unused—but from a workload standpoint, a one-person-one-vote method would be more efficient.
If we’re going to redo the off-chain vote, perhaps we should use a forum poll to gauge sentiment on whether to use Subsquare or Snapshot. It would have stronger Sybil resistance than just using a wallet-based vote via Subsquare. It might also be good to supplement this with input via Discord or X.
No matter which direction we go, there will inevitably be complaints. So it’s important that we select the least problematic approach—the one that can gain the most consensus.
Thank you—this should help reassure those community members who have expressed concerns.
However, this must be finalized before any ASTR transfers via on-chain voting are initiated.
Hello, I’m a Neemo Finance user. It’s been 24 days since the hack on July 6th, and I still haven’t received my funds. I’m deeply disappointed by the delay in recovery, and I think many others are as well. As I’ve been reading the forums, I’ve been able to see why the Astar brand hasn’t become mainstream. I understand that this hack isn’t the fault of the Astar Foundation or ACC. However, they’ve only been working to protect L1 Astar tokens, and haven’t made any effort to quickly recover L2.
From a user’s perspective, the responsibility of L1 and L2 isn’t particularly important. Our top priority is simply a speedy recovery. However, the current discussion is meaningless. If we continue this way, Astar will gradually lose its appeal to users. Blockchain is steadily evolving, and many chains with better UI and DeFi are emerging. I hope the astar foundation, ACC, and the neemo team will work together to resolve the recovery issue quickly without further delay.
Please provide feedback on how the brand was not damaged despite the hacking of Sui’s Cetus. And I urge you once again: before you lose users’ trust, stop worrying about who’s responsible and prioritize a speedy recovery.
While the off-chain vote may not have produced a fully satisfying outcome, all relevant options have now been surfaced. These were shaped through discussions on the forum, in Discord, and with various teams. And the snapshot model, which was not initially included, was later added in response to community feedback. As a temperature check, this process has served its purpose.
Ultimately, the final decision must be made through an on-chain vote. Without it, the transfer of ASTR from the Treasury cannot proceed. Even if we were to conduct another vote using a “1 person, 1 vote” model among Neemo users, and a different option were selected, it would still need to pass via on-chain governance to take effect.
That’s why, as we’ve said from the beginning, the most reasonable approach is to present options rank through an off-chain vote and let the on-chain vote determine the final outcome.
The position that the off-chain vote serves purely as a temperature check and that the on-chain vote is decisive has remained consistent from the start.
–-
Thank you.
@Maarten , could you please provide two Polkadot multisig addresses for the beneficiary setup? We will configure it as a 2-of-3 multisig, and I will hold only one key.
To be honest, I personally don’t mind what process is used—as long as the community can agree on it. I’m only engaging in this discussion because voices of opposition have stood out. That said, it’s often the case that dissenting opinions are more noticeable, so it’s understandable that this might feel more significant than it actually is.
Even if a repayment plan is passed through on-chain governance, it does not carry any essential enforceability. This is because the key function of on-chain governance lies in enabling execution on-chain with binding authority. In the case of transferring ASTR, on-chain governance is absolutely required, and execution is guaranteed. However, choosing a repayment plan is not something that can be executed on-chain, so it inherently lacks binding force. Therefore, the real question is whether the vote holds enough meaning to earn consensus—meaning that trust and legitimacy are crucial.
In that regard, I have doubts about the current process. The issues with the off-chain vote are part of this, and decisions made by ASTR holders can only be considered legitimate when it comes to the movement of ASTR. When it comes to voting on Neemo’s repayment plan, I would argue that it lacks legitimacy if it doesn’t ensure that Neemo users themselves can vote.
That said, it’s also true that some people want the process to move forward quickly. In the end, one side of the argument will have to be sacrificed. If the decision is made to proceed as-is, while accepting that, then I can accept it too.
Let’s see how long we can get our funds back.(Our rights, All users rights)
Here is the latest update:
Development of the reimbursement contract and UI, with flexibility to adapt based on the final option selected in the vote
Held a meeting with Immunefi to review the Claim Page, conduct a security audit, and discuss launching a bug bounty program
Engaged in key management consultation with zeroShadow.
Continued discussions around a potential acquisition, working toward consensus on the next strategic steps
Can we get vote adress
Here is the link
@SeiyaChida could you share some progress from the last days?
The last update was 2 days ago and would like to know what the team has been focusing on for the last days. Also no updates are shared in our private channel with the Foundation, everything has been quiet for the last days.
Fellow Astar and Neemo community members,
Following the recent on-chain referendum 33 regarding the Neemo compensation plan, it’s clear that the community has spoken decisively against the snapshot model. As an nsASTR DeFi user who has been closely following this process, I believe this presents an opportunity to advocate for what many of us consider the most equitable solution: the Asset-Linked Model.
The rejection of referendum 33 reflects several fundamental concerns that many community members raised:
Flawed Off-Chain Voting Process: The 2-day off-chain poll lacked proper Sybil resistance mechanisms and was criticized by multiple community members as inadequate for such a consequential decision.
Unfair Treatment of DeFi Users: The snapshot model would have severely disadvantaged active DeFi participants who form the majority of nsASTR/nrETH holders, effectively punishing users for engaging with the broader ecosystem.
Technical Implementation Risks: Even the Neemo team acknowledged concerns about the feasibility and accuracy of the snapshot model across nearly 10 different dApps.
Community Division: The model created artificial distinctions between “safe” stakers and “risky” DeFi users, when in reality, both groups contributed to the protocol’s growth and TVL.
As we move forward, I strongly urge the community to rally behind the Asset-Linked (Burn) Model for the following reasons:
Immediate Fairness (Phase 1)
nsASTR holders receive approximately 78-79% compensation immediately
nrETH holders receive approximately 65-70% compensation immediately
Equal treatment for all users regardless of whether tokens were held directly or in DeFi positions
Transparent, auditable distribution based on actual recovered assets
Sustainable Recovery (Phase 2)
100% of Neemo’s future dApp-staking rewards directed toward closing the remaining gap
Clear path to eventual full compensation for all affected users
Incentivizes long-term ecosystem participation and recovery
Technical Simplicity
Straightforward burn-and-redeem mechanism
No complex cross-protocol calculations or manual verification
Immediate execution once community approval is secured
Multiple respected community members have already voiced support for this approach, recognizing it as the most balanced solution that:
Respects the risks and rewards that all users accepted
Maintains fairness across different participation methods
Provides immediate relief while ensuring long-term recovery
Strengthens rather than divides our community
The failure of referendum 33 gives us a fresh opportunity to implement the right solution from the start. Rather than rushing into another divisive proposal, let’s use this moment to:
Build consensus around the asset-linked model through thorough community discussion
Learn from the referendum 33 process by ensuring proper governance mechanisms
Focus on unity rather than creating winners and losers within our community
Prioritize fairness for all affected users, regardless of how they chose to use their tokens
As someone who has been actively participating in Astar’s DeFi ecosystem and supporting Neemo’s innovation, I believe the asset-linked model represents our best chance to emerge from this crisis stronger and more united.
I encourage all community members - whether you held tokens directly, in vaults, or across DeFi protocols - to voice your support for this equitable approach. Let’s turn this setback into an opportunity to demonstrate how a decentralized community can come together to solve complex challenges fairly and transparently.
The path forward is clear. Let’s take it together.
What are your thoughts on moving forward with the asset-linked model? I’m eager to hear from the community on how we can best structure the next steps to ensure broad support and swift implementation.
The previous on-chain referendum rejected the Snapshot model. As announced, we are therefore proceeding with the next most-supported option from the off-chain poll: the Asset-Linked Model.
Remember: no ASTR can move without an on-chain “AYE”. Your vote alone advances the compensation process.
Whether Phase 1 compensation will adopt the Asset-Linked Model.
If the referendum passes:
204,283,546 ASTR safeguarded in the Astar Treasury is distributed to nsASTR holders.
91.634 ETH returned by the white-hat initiative is distributed to nrETH holders.
Both distributions occur instantly through burn-for-refund contracts.
| Token group | Funding source | Payout rule (burn contract) |
|---|---|---|
| nsASTR | Entire protected ASTR balance | User burns nsASTR → receives ASTR immediately |
| nrETH | Entire returned ETH balance | User burns nrETH → receives ETH immediately |
The nsASTR/nrETH in the hacker wallets are already burned; minting is permanently disabled.
Burn contracts stay open forever—late burns receive the same rate.
Suspicious addresses can be quarantined or capped.
Estimated discount (final figure set after funds arrive):
nsASTR ≈ 21.7 % (1 nsASTR ≈ 0.8685 ASTR)
nrETH ≈ 30.5 % (1 nrETH ≈ 0.744 ETH)
Withdraw
Retrieve nsASTR / nrETH from DEX LPs, lending pools.
Lending pools are preparing to reopen withdrawal; L2 contracts are already safe under Neemo multisig + timelock control, thus interacting nsASTR/nrETH is safe even though the Metamask or any wallet alert.
Burn
Receive
Emergency withdrawal requires both External Advisors and the Neemo multisig.
Treasury payout address is a 2-of-3 Polkadot multisig that is not controlled solely by the Neemo team.
No relaunch of nsASTR / nrETH until a fully audited plan is in place.
100 % of Neemo dApp-staking rewards—minus minimal ops costs—will stream monthly into the compensation pool until pre-hack exchange rates are reached.
Additional sources (new protocol revenue, any further asset recoveries) will also feed the pool.
Current vote — approve or reject the Asset-Linked Model.
Treasury transfer — upon approval, 204 M ASTR is sent to the Neemo multisig.
Claims open — burn & refund begin as soon as funds arrive and the code completed with audit
Phase 2 — monthly dApp-staking rewards and additional revenue top up the pool until all gaps are closed.
Please review the details and cast your on-chain vote. Only an on-chain “AYE” can unlock the protected ASTR and start refunds.
Couldn’t agree more with this—makes total sense. The asset-linked model is fair, easy to follow, and actually treats everyone the same, no matter if you used DeFi or not. After all the drama, we need something straightforward so people can finally get the compensation they deserve. Let’s back this, move forward, and put the endless debates behind us.
Honestly, the asset-linked model seems like the best shot we’ve got at finally making things right for everyone. It keeps things simple and doesn’t leave anyone out, whether you were just holding or actively using DeFi. After all that’s happened, what really matters is getting people compensated fairly and closing this chapter. Dragging it out helps nobody—let’s just agree on this path and finally move forward.
I also feel that, among the remaining three options, the Asset-Linked model seems the most suitable.
That said, I think it’s worth keeping in mind that the three Burn models share a common consideration.
To be clear, this is not intended as criticism of the Burn models. Rather, I believe it’s important for us to fully understand the trade-offs before making a decision. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages, and none are perfect.
I am comfortable with any plan as long as it has clear community consensus.
Thank you as always for your constructive feedback.
1. Regarding the first point, we’ve already been coordinating with both UntitledBank and Sake, and appropriate measures have been put in place. Since the hack, no users have been liquidated, and even after the reimbursement phase, the likelihood of liquidation even after reimbursement begins is quite low based on the liquidation model
2. As for the second point, while nothing has been finalized yet, we are actively working on securing additional revenue sources. Once the current direction is confirmed, we believe we can build a structure that enables supplementary income. We are also exploring alternative forms of compensation to further accelerate the reimbursement process.
Absolutely agree with you on the long-term repayment issue—that’s really the core problem now. Even with the Asset-Linked model likely passing, most people aren’t going to want to wait 10 years (or more) to get made whole, especially if it all depends just on slow dApp staking rewards. It just isn’t realistic for the community to be left in limbo that long.
At this point, the team needs to start thinking outside the box for closing that compensation gap way faster. Whether it’s bringing in new capital from the foundation, seeking external investment, negotiating with other protocol partners, or even setting up some formal recovery/outreach efforts, it’s crucial for both trust and long-term health. Relying on staking revenue alone practically locks users into years of uncertainty.
A solution that makes a real dent in Phase 2—beyond just waiting—should be a top priority after this vote is settled. The community deserves a clear plan and real options, not just reassurance that something will happen eventually. People need to see that the team is actively working on better options and not just letting things drag on.
Thank you for the reply — understood.
I realize that many things are still not finalized at this stage, but I do hope we’ll have more clarity soon.
Ideally, a third party could provide upfront funding to enable early reimbursement for affected users, with Neemo repaying the lender over time from future revenues. However, unless Neemo can establish sustainable revenue sources beyond dApp staking, I imagine it would be very difficult to secure such funding in the first place.
You mentioned that the team is currently working on building those additional revenue streams — depending on how that develops, the outlook could change significantly.
What would really help everyone is some transparency and concrete updates from the team:
Is there an active plan or timeline for building up these new revenue streams?
Are there any specific partners, products, or funding deals currently being negotiated?
Can the community see targets or projections, so people know what to expect and when?
If the team could share those details—what’s being done, what’s possible, and where outside capital or new revenue might actually come from—it would go a long way in rebuilding trust and helping affected users (including myself) make decisions. Right now, we need more than just “we’re working on it”—we need to see some options and measurable progress.