Neemo Exploit Reimbursement Plan

Astar
92

@SeiyaChida

Mr. Seiya Chida, your argument against the snapshot model not only presents a biased technical perspective but also completely disregards fundamental property rights.

The ASTR in the vault was deliberately and consciously deposited by users , including myself , into the Neemo vault, not into any active DeFi strategy. It was done under the clear understanding that the funds were safe and held during a pre-deposit phase, before any strategy execution.

Your attempt to discredit the snapshot model by focusing on its “complexity” is a distraction from the core issue:
Whose assets are these?

They are not yours. They were never lost. They are still there, labeled as “protected ASTR”.

Now you claim the Astar vault was entirely under your control – and not Astar’s responsibility?
Fine. But if you had full control, then you also bear full responsibility for the loss.

Which makes it even more unacceptable that you’re now trying to harm your own users , Neemo users, by rejecting a model that rightfully acknowledges our deposits and ownership.

If you truly care about your responsibility, then respect the ownership rights of others.
Don’t manipulate the discussion by spreading fear and exaggerating implementation risks.

Take accountability. Anything less will trigger legal consequences.

4 Likes
93

I’ve only stated facts. If there’s anything you believe is factually incorrect, I’d genuinely appreciate it if you could point it out. As far as I’m aware, I haven’t included anything beyond verifiable facts.

I’ve made every effort to keep the message neutral and fact-based, to ensure fair evaluation. There is no bias here. I’m simply presenting the facts prior to the vote.

And if this proposal is approved through the vote, I will take full responsibility to move it forward accordingly.

94

@SeiyaChida

You say you’re only stating facts, but it’s not just about facts , it’s about ownership and responsibility.

You’ve completely avoided the core issue: users’ property rights.

Users deposited their ASTR into a dedicated vault clearly labeled for Neemo’s campaign , not into DeFi, not into lending pools.

No DeFi strategy was executed at that time.
→ So users did not actively take DeFi risks. They simply entrusted their assets to Neemo’s vault under the expectation of future use, not speculation.

This means those funds were custodied by Neemo, and users still retained ownership rights over them , not as speculators, but as depositors.

Calling this a “DeFi operation” and pushing for burn-based redistribution is an attempt to erase those ownership rights and shift blame away from Neemo’s responsibility to repay its own users.

If you’re truly stating facts neutrally, you must also acknowledge this:

:pushpin: Neemo accepted assets from users
:pushpin: No smart contract failed, Neemo failed to secure those funds
:pushpin: Those assets weren’t part of a live DeFi strategy
:pushpin: Users’ ownership rights over their vault deposits should come before redistribution models

If you ignore those legal and ethical facts, then your “fact-based” message becomes a one, sided narrative designed to justify a model that disproportionately harms the very users you should be protecting.

If you were truly neutral, you would have included the snapshot model from the beginning , not only after the community raised concerns.

5 Likes
95

Just to clarify, my comment regarding the vault wasn’t directed at you. Since it wasn’t posted as a direct reply, I understand it may have caused some confusion. Apologies for that. Please refer to the previous context to see who it was intended for.

Also, could I kindly ask you to review the first message I posted? It wasn’t written from my personal perspective alone. It was developed through discussions with various stakeholders and meant to reflect the broader picture. That’s why I proposed all the options

In fact, I included the snapshot option based on your feedback as well. I’ve also clearly stated that if the vote passes, I will take full responsibility for carrying it out. I’ve been doing my best to remain neutral and present the facts objectively.

96

@SeiyaChida

If ownership rights were truly a priority from the beginning, Model 4 (the Snapshot model) would have been the starting point.

We wouldn’t have lost time discussing three burn-based models, and we could already have begun processing compensation.

Now that the Snapshot model has finally been included, I have a serious question:

:yellow_circle: If this process is truly neutral,
→ How exactly will the voting be conducted?
→ Will only affected users be eligible to vote?
→ Or can anyone, even those unrelated to the issue, cast a vote by just visiting the forum?

Because if this is about fairness, then only those who suffered the losses should have the right to decide how compensation is handled.
So my question is:

:right_arrow: How will the neutrality and legitimacy of this vote be verified in the end?

2 Likes
97

to neemo founder,

have you try to Astar treasury to loan the missing $ASTR?
all four compensation methods result in users actively bearing the loss.
this loss was caused by neemo’s mistake. Have you ever thought about taking responsibility for it?
Your first priority is to find a way to compensate users 100%, rather than coming up with some confusing solutions.

3 Likes
98

Here’s why I still support the Split Model:

Systemic Fairness vs. Asset Labeling:
The hack created cross-liabilities: nsASTR collateral, DeFi pools, and vaults all lost assets. Although 91.6 ETH came back due to the nrETH exploit, users in both products lost funds because the hacks to two asset pools happened in the same breach window. The Split Model recognizes this system-wide damage—not just one pool—so all classes of users recover something even if the technical trace is not asset-pure.

nsASTR Holders’ Losses Were Real and Interconnected:
Many nsASTR DeFi users (lending/LP) lost protocol ETH that secured their positions, not just ASTR. As a result, the impact of unrecovered ETH “bled” into nsASTR pool liabilities too. The split is meant to address this overlap.

Community Solidarity:
In cross-asset protocol hacks, compensation usually means everyone takes some loss, so that no group is left with near-total wipeout while another is made nearly whole. The Split Model is a community-minded compromise—not perfect, but it prevents anyone from being “sacrificed” for asset purism.

Precedent and Participation:
Most of the Astar ecosystem’s recovered ETH sits in a shared treasury that was transparently assembled post-hack, recognizing interdependency among all token products. The Split Model was built with massive input—including from both nrETH and nsASTR victims—and was offered for community vote for fairness and legitimacy.

Implementation & Speed:
The Split Model is operationally simple and fast, reducing dispute risk and delivering compensation more rapidly to all affected users, not only one group.

If the Asset-Linked Model wins in the vote, I’ll respect it—but from a DeFi user and protocol survivability standpoint, I believe the Split Model does the most to help everyone move forward, share recovery, and prevent sets of users being entirely left out.

4 Likes
99

Hello everyone,

Big thanks to the Neemo team and especially Seiya Chida for all the effort, transparency, and communication in guiding the community through this complex recovery process. Your commitment has made a real difference for all of us navigating this situation.

With the referendum vote now live, I want to strongly encourage everyone—especially those with positions in DeFi protocols like Untitled Bank, Sake Finance, Sonex, and similar lending or LP platforms—to vote for Model 2: Split Model.

VOTE FOR MODEL 2: SPLIT MODEL
Here’s why the Split Model is the fairest and best choice for DeFi users:

It recognizes the real net positions we have in lending, borrowing, and LP protocols, not just what is sitting in wallets.

Balances both ASTR and ETH pools responsibly: 50% of recovered ETH and all protected ASTR go to nsASTR holders, 50% of returned ETH goes to nrETH holders. This ensures fairness between all affected groups.

Protects DeFi users: Those of us with assets trapped, lent out, or supplied as collateral aren’t left behind—protocol exposures are recognized and compensated.

Enables faster, more transparent compensation: With the burn model, we can start claiming right after the vote instead of waiting for complicated, slow off-chain calculations.

Please remember: voting for Snapshot (Model 4) would disadvantage nearly all active DeFi users, as it would fail to recognize tokens locked in protocols and could leave many of us unable to recover what we lost.

If, like me, you used any DeFi protocols or had your tokens anywhere other than your main wallet, let’s unite to vote for Model 2: Split Model to ensure a fair, rapid, and inclusive outcome for the entire community.

Thank you again to the Neemo team and everyone supporting one another—we’re stronger together! (edited)

4 Likes
100

Hi @SeiyaChida,

Could you please clarify whether the referendum will be conducted on a basis of one person = one vote, or one ASTR (or nsASTR) = one vote? If the latter is the case, many users who had most or all of their ASTR involved in the hack will be unable to exercise their true voting power. Additionally, holders who redeemed their nsASTR before the hack and were waiting to claim their ASTR no longer hold their nsASTR. Conversely, users with DeFi positions now hold more nsASTR than they did prior to the hack.

This makes the vote difficult to balance: a one person = one vote system might undervalue the amount users have at stake, while a one ASTR/nsASTR = one vote system could disproportionately favor users with DeFi positions.

Furthermore, could you please explain why a snapshot model cannot be combined with a burning mechanism, to help clarify this for everyone?

Thank you for your clarification.

4 Likes
101

I completely agree with this perspective on why the Split Model is the fairest and most practical approach to compensation.

The hack’s impact spans multiple interconnected assets and protocols—nsASTR collateral, DeFi pools, vaults—all suffered losses. While the nrETH portion of ETH was partly recovered, the overall damage is systemic and can’t be cleanly separated by strict asset tracing. The Split Model smartly acknowledges this by recognizing collective responsibility and ensuring all user groups receive a meaningful recovery.

Especially for those of us with complex DeFi positions—collateral in lending protocols or LP tokens—the losses are intertwined across these pools. The Split Model accounts for these overlaps so that DeFi users aren’t unfairly penalized by a rigid “asset labeling” approach that might exclude their legitimate claims.

Community solidarity is crucial here. In situations like this, it’s about sharing the burden fairly, rather than allowing one class of users to bear disproportionate loss while others recover fully. This model strikes that balance well, preserving the ecosystem’s stability and user trust.

Moreover, the transparency and collaborative development of the model—bringing together voices from both nrETH and nsASTR communities—adds legitimacy and reassures us that no one user group was sidelined.

Finally, the operational simplicity and speed of the Split Model means we can get compensated faster and with less risk of delay or error, which is vital for users relying on these funds.

While I respect alternative views and will accept the community’s choice, from the standpoint of DeFi user fairness and ecosystem health, the Split Model represents the best path forward to ensure no one is left behind.

1 Like
102

I had around 4kk ASTR in Neemo, which represents approximately 2% of the entire protocol. Will my voting power be treated the same as that of anonymous wallets potentially created in bulk by interested parties?
I’m fully aware of the potential risks involved in new DeFi platforms, which is why I chose not to engage in any manipulations with nsASTR. I intentionally avoided chasing extra yield in favor of security.
should I be held accountable for the risks taken by other participants who decided to farm additional percentages and knowingly accepted the associated dangers?
Now that losses have occurred, those of us who deliberately avoided higher-risk strategies are being forced to share the consequences as if we had taken the same risks. This is fundamentally unfair.

2 Likes
103

In off-chain voting, a 1 person, 1 vote model is used.

However, as far as I understand on-chain voting operates very differently, based on ASTR balance × conviction multiplier. This means that if the off-chain result doesn’t align with the preferences of major on-chain voters, it could be overturned and the withdrawal could be rejected.

Also, apologies, but could you clarify what you mean by a mix of burn mechanism and snapshot? How would the calculation work in such a model?

104

Including ASTR in the vote is completely unreasonable, since many of the affected users held nrASTR.

105

Apologies, but I’d like to clarify that the 204,283,546.036 ASTR is currently secured by the Astar Treasury, and only the swift action of the Main Council and Astar Collective prevented a total loss.

As such, any movement of these funds must be approved through an on-chain referendum. I personally have no decision-making authority over these assets.

106

Vote is live and what is web adress

107

Thank you for your consideration.

To be honest, I’m willing to accept any of the options (likely Option 1 or 4), as long as the community is satisfied with the decision. This is because engaging in DeFi, including LSDs, inherently involves accepting such risks. Each option has its pros and cons, and there is no perfect answer. Option 4 indeed places a significant burden on users who were lenders in lending protocols. Options 1–3 compensate for that burden, but as a result, the overall liability increases.

However, isn’t there still a lack of detailed explanation regarding the “Estimated Discount” shown in Options 1–3?

While I’ve said I would accept the community’s decision, I do believe this matter needs to be explained. If I’ve overlooked something or misunderstood, I apologize, but I’d appreciate a clear explanation on this point.

4 Likes
108

Thanks for your comment.

Here is how the nsASTR discount rate is calculated for option1 and option2 and 3 is not possible to calculate now as the rate between ASTR and ETH is not static.

  1. Legitimate supply after cleanup
  • Start with the current total supply: 358,375,104.425 nsASTR.
  • Subtract the 154 ,000 ,000 nsASTR (Already burned)
  • The result is 204 ,375 ,104.425 nsASTR
  1. Available ASTR for compensation
  • The treasury is holding 204 ,283 ,546.036 ASTR in total.
  • Chunk 1 (26 ,783 ,546.036 ASTR) for users who requested withdrawal before the hack, so it is taken out.
  • That leaves 177 ,500 ,000 ASTR
  1. Convert those two figures into a compensation rate
  • Divide the ASTR available for compensation (177 ,500 ,000) by the cleaned-up nsASTR supply (204,375,104.425).
  • The outcome is 0.86850109 ASTR for every 1 nsASTR .
  1. Compare that rate to the pre-hack rate to see the loss
  • Before the exploit, 1 nsASTR was worth 1.11 ASTR.
  • The drop is 1.11 ASTR minus 0.86850109 ASTR, which equals 0.24149891 ASTR.
  • Divide that drop (0.24149891 ASTR) by the original 1.11 ASTR value.
  • The result is 21.72 percent

This caluculation is the same as nrETH. But as I mentioned, since option2 and 3 needs ASTR<>ETH swap, we can’t calculate the exact rate yet.

1 Like
109

Compensation-Model Voting Now Live (48 h) The community vote to select a compensation model is now open for the next 48 hours.

  • Step 1: Off-chain vote on Subsquare,

Determines which of the four models the community prefers. Important: this off-chain result is not final; it simply picks the proposal that will be sent on-chain.

  • Step 2: On-chain vote,

Immediately after the off-chain vote closes, we will submit an on-chain referendum and will be decided whether to accept the off-chain choice. Only if that on-chain vote passes does the model become binding. Please keep in mind: the off-chain poll is a straw-poll to set the content of the on-chain proposal, not a final decision itself. Please vote from the following ballot link: Neemo Finance - Compensation Model Referendum

1 Like
110

I have been following this thread and would like to share my thoughts here with the intention of ensuring that the compensation model is just and fair. Based on the 3 compensation models proposed, split model may seem unfair at first glance, but it is the fairest option if everyone dig deeper to understand the rationale.

I would like to emphasize that the 204,283,546.036 ASTR was protected by the Main Council and as a result, was not affected by the exploit. This is to the credit of the Main Council whom I have seen first hand, worked swiftly in the wee morning on a weekend.

When an exploit occurs, any recovered amount from the hacker should be distributed to all affected users, regardless of asset class. None of the exploited nsASTR was returned, but 91.639 ETH were recovered from the hacker. There were some mentions that the split model would cause a certain degree of unfairness because the estimated discount of the nrETH is far greater. However, the lower nsASTR discount rate is due to the action by the Main Council mentioned above, and should not be discredited (Emphasis: Asset protected ≠ asset recovered). In other words, it would be unfair to take the approach that nsASTR holders should not be entitled to the recovered amount simply because part of their assets were protected, as is the approach subtly undertaken by the Asset-Link model.

In conclusion, I support the Split Model as I firmly believe that any recovered amount from the hacker should be distributed to all affected users, regardless of asset class.

2 Likes
111

“Does the ‘DeFi portion’ in ‘4. Snapshot model: Protected ASTR only to nsASTR wallets (no DeFi portion in Phase 1)’ include vault?”