Neemo Exploit Reimbursement Plan

Astar
29

That early vault was secured with no breach and Astar promoted it after the ACS all users should not be all linked into the same boat I still see the vault full with all 20m Astar Campaign why should we all have to take a hit when our tokens are sitting there. When the hole point of it was secured and locked :locked: no risks

3 Likes
30

This is the point I’m saying for weeks on discord it’s like our funds are held at ransom at this point because of there mistakes

2 Likes
31

im fully backing on this also

1 Like
32

First, thank you for all the efforts getting the recovery plan moving forward. I’m grateful for the substantial progress and transparency so far. However, I have concerns about two important aspects of the latest reimbursement plan:

1. Receiving 20% of Compensation Over Time: Why This Is Problematic

While I appreciate the phased recovery approach, for many affected users—including myself—receiving a significant 20% of our funds only gradually can create real-life problems. This long-term payout structure exposes people to ongoing risk and uncertainty, especially during unpredictable market phases.

Alternative scenario:
Imagine if someone had to borrow money to cover emergency expenses or to avoid liquidation right after the exploit. Getting only a portion of compensation now, and the rest in unpredictable increments over many months, could leave people indebted, paying high interest, or needing to take out further loans to bridge the gap.

I believe this incremental payout harms users who, through no fault of their own, now face additional hurdles and stress that direct victims of an exploit shouldn’t have to shoulder.

Request:

  • Is the 20% deferred portion unavoidable?
  • Are there sustainable ways (e.g., third-party advances, insurance, or liquidity support) to help users access their full compensation sooner?

2. DeFi Users: Complex Positions and the Need for More Clarity

Many of us have complex DeFi positions—supplying collateral, borrowing assets, or being caught in liquidation cascades. The way these are accounted for in compensation remains unclear:

  • How will net exposure be calculated for users who supplied and borrowed tokens (sometimes through multiple protocols)?
  • What happens if someone’s nsASTR collateral was liquidated because of the price crash post-exploit? Are they compensated on their snapshot balance or actual post-liquidation holdings?
  • How are situations like bad debt or “underwater” positions on lending protocols (e.g., Sake, Untitled Bank) being handled?

My main concern:
Without precise rules and examples about these scenarios, many DeFi users have no way of estimating what they’ll actually recover or what actions to take.

Suggestions for a Clearer Process

  • Please provide detailed “user journey” examples for different DeFi cases: simple staking, borrowing, getting liquidated, having bad debt, etc.
  • Consider developing a compensation simulator or FAQ so users can estimate their outcomes based on wallet activity.
  • Regular updates about how the snapshot/block timing and net position calculations are made for each protocol would go a long way.

In summary:
While I appreciate the intent to make everyone whole, the combination of phased payouts and DeFi complexity creates lingering uncertainty and hardship for many users. I urge the team to consider alternatives to the 20% timed payout and to offer clear, protocol-by-protocol specifics to cover advanced DeFi cases.

Thank you for considering this feedback—transparency in both timing and calculation will boost confidence in the recovery process for all of us.

33

Hi @you425

The 26M missing in the calculation correspond to the Chunk-1 in unstaking before the hack :

they are planning to treat separatly the 26,783M from the 204.283M secured because it will be refund at 100% directly since they are not linked to nsASTR (the corresponding nsASTR have been burned before the hack as part of ledgitimate process of ASTR redeem)

2 Likes
34

I completely agree with what you said: returning it quickly to the original staker can also avoid imposing long-term unknown risks on the victims. This is something the neemo team needs to pay attention to. The future you envision is not likely to be that smooth, and attempting to shift the risk through these options is unacceptable.

2 Likes
35

At this point feels like neemo it’s commuting theft of my funds when I see them sitting all 300k in a contract and won’t hand them out or wants to give everyone a slice of my funds for mistakes on your end cut your losses get a loan out or is the APY to high on that so it’s cheaper to drip feed us funds and you make revenue at same time while or funds don’t work for us and don’t help the whole ecosystem

2 Likes
36

I truly appreciate the all feedbacks. I’ll address each of your points individually

2 Likes
37

Its clear that Neemo don’t want to hurt ETH holders as people may be hesitant to deposit their ETH with them in the future.

What exactly is the ETH shortfall? We got 90 ETH back - how much is missing?

Best solution is AFC or Astar Degens give them a loan and in return get a high interest / and or a high allocation of Neemo token in the future.

Degen’s arn’t using their treasury war chest for anything right now and have bought mostly rugs in the past - this would he a good opportunity for them and a good value / high upside investment.

Would love to see them as an angel investor here and would be a massive support to the ecosystem right now.

@PolkaWarrior

1 Like
38

I’d like clarification regarding the ASTR/nsASTR tokens that were deposited into the 20M cap vault so heavily sponsored by ASTAR (see attached photos).

These tokens even had a 30-day lockout!
So, are these 20M tokens part of the 200M secured or not? Is there a place to check them on the explorer?

2 Likes
39
  1. Sorry, I’m not sure I fully understand your first question. Could you please clarify?

2,3. Regarding these points, we have been indeed exploring options such as investment, acquisition, or loans. However, since nothing is finalized at this stage, sharing any premature information may cause unnecessary confusion. For now, our top priority is to proceed with the reimbursement as quickly as possible, so we submitted this proposal first.

1 Like
40

Regarding secure a loan or upfront funding, we have been indeed exploring options such as investment, acquisition, or loans. However, since nothing is finalized at this stage, sharing any premature information may cause unnecessary confusion. For now, our top priority is to proceed with the reimbursement as quickly as possible.

41

I didn’t mean to suggest that option 1 is necessarily fair. Rather, we believed it was important to present the possible options and open them up for discussion for transperancy, which is why we submitted the proposal.

Yes, yayASTR needs to be redeemed for nsASTR first, and then nsASTR can be redeemed for ASTR. Apologies for the inconvenience.

42

Once this discussion is finalized, we will promptly proceed to the voting phase.

43

Thanks for the tag! I’d like to clarify a few points you raised:

  1. “The best solution” – That’s a highly subjective claim and feels a bit shortsighted. Let’s not forget: there’s a reason why neemo – and before that, Starlay – got hacked. While the teams aren’t exactly the same, there is a significant overlap worth pointing out.

  2. “Degens aren’t using their treasury […]” – That’s simply incorrect. The Degens Treasury is actively being used across several areas. The largest portion is allocated to staking our Astar on smaller dApps we’re supporting. These collaborations have delivered tangible value to the ecosystem. A prime example: this support helped onboard NFTBridges, who provide essential infrastructure for NFTs on Astar – Soneium. That initiative would not have happened without our commitment.

In addition, we’ve created a framework to deploy treasury funds into chain-agnostic DeFi opportunities, aligned with the AFC’s broader goals just on a smaller scope. Currently, this accounts for only a small percentage of our overall treasury, but is rapidly increasing due to good management.

Regarding the claim that we’ve “only invested in rugs” – this needs clarification. Astar Degens is a DAO. Every decision is made collectively through governance – true Web3. The projects you mention (Arthswap, Starlay, Algem) were foundational Astar OGs. If you consider them rugs, that’s your interpretation. But for us, investing in them was a clear show of support for the Astar ecosystem and its teams. Yes, the returns weren’t as expected – but that’s the inherent risk of any investment, especially early-stage ones. In hindsight, things are always clearer. Our motive back then – just like it would be with something like a loan to neemo – was: Return < Ecosystem support. That may not be sustainable long-term, but we still partially follow this philosophy because we understand the value of ecosystem growth.

That said, based on past experience, we’ve developed a clear investment framework for our DeFi fund. It’s structured, strategy-driven, and focused on profitability.

Last note: We publish a detailed report of our treasury balance and income status – it’s publicly available on our Discord.

4 Likes
44

Yes, it’s the same. You’ll need to withdraw nsASTR first, and then you can redeem it for ASTR.

1 Like
45

This proposal was not made by Neemo alone. As mentioned earlier, it was developed with input from the Neemo community, the Astar community, the Astar Main Council, the Astar Collective, and relevant DeFi protocols.

We did consider using a snapshot-based approach. However, with nearly 10 different dApps involved, the calculation would become overly complex and significantly delay the process. Moreover, compensation to DeFi users who make up the majority, would be greatly reduced under that model.

For these reasons, we chose to propose the current structure.

46

@PolkaWarrior

Let me start by saying I wasn’t / am not attacking you or Degens - i have great respect for you guys in fact.

I was not aware of your current DAO treasury strategy and this is impressive to me.

Yes, the returns weren’t as expected – but that’s the inherent risk of any investment, especially early-stage ones. In hindsight, things are always clearer. Our motive back then – just like it would be with something like a loan to neemo – was: Return < Ecosystem support.

When i said rugs - yes i was referring to this.

Neemo is a much better bet than they all were. And you guys would be able to get a favourable token allocation for supporting an ecosystem project, much like you tried to do the past.

Edit: Starlay and Neemo are completely different and is a seperate topic altogether.

Also Starlay have / had core team member connections and overlap.

Mistakes get made all the time , especially in crypto.

This case was a genuine oversight and nothing malicious as seen in other projects.

Neemo were making connections with ETH liquid restaking providers and building cutting edge tech.

1 Like
47

the Astar community, the Astar Main Council, the Astar Collective

OK This astonished me.

3 Likes
48

Thank you for your feedback. As mentioned earlier, we believed it was important to present the possible options and open them up for discussion in the interest of transparency, which is why we submitted the proposal first. Appreciate your feedback.

Regarding securing a loan or upfront funding, as noted above, we have indeed been exploring options such as investment, acquisition, or loans. However, since nothing has been finalized at this stage, sharing any premature information could lead to unnecessary confusion.

At this point, our top priority is to move forward with the reimbursement process as quickly and transparently as possible.