Big Data 💾

We received backlash for the activated circuit breaker mechanism in our protocol during yesterday’s events. However, as someone who has personally witnessed the Terra crash, the FTX collapse, and the Covid market meltdown, it has always been my deep conviction to prioritize the security of user funds over the pursuit of protocol revenue. The circuit breaker was triggered by a steep, market-wide decline across all major assets, temporarily pausing protocol activity for about an hour and a half. During this time, the market was free-falling but later began to stabilize in a new price range. During this period, some users, particularly short sellers, expressed frustration that they couldn’t close their perpetual positions at peak profit. However, thanks to this anti–price manipulation safeguard, we prevented approximately $6 million in user deposits from being liquidated. I understand that not every protocol operates under the same ethos, and that some might prefer a “profit-first” approach. But I firmly believe that protecting user funds in moments of extreme volatility is more important than enabling opportunistic gains during a market crash. Yes, we lost users because of this decision. But in a cross-collateralized environment like @mars_protocol, even a single instance of price manipulation can cause catastrophic losses. That’s why I continue to stand by the decision to integrate and maintain the circuit breaker since the adoption of our @PythNetwork oracle. Going forward, we’ll improve transparency by adding a clear UI indicator whenever the circuit breaker is active. Still, I am not in favor of removing this protection merely to allow individual profits at the expense of broader market stability and user safety.