xiangzi

as one of the top three investors in the resupply project, with millions of dollars at stake, this incident has caused not only significant financial loss, but also intense psychological pressure. yet simply for raising reasonable concerns in the official discord, i was muted without cause. that kind of response is unacceptable. at this point, debating the definition or mechanics of the insurance pool is meaningless. i want to make my position clear: 1/ many investors, myself included, only dared to commit this level of capital because resupply was presented as having the credibility of curve behind it. let’s be honest. if teams like curve, convex, and yearn had not publicly or privately signaled involvement, few would have touched a new protocol like this with size. now, those same parties are distancing themselves, which is infuriating. 2/ this loss was not caused by market volatility or a bad debt event. it was a critical technical failure — an erc4626 inflation bug that happened because the team failed to burn initial shares when deploying a new vault. this allowed an attacker to mint unlimited shares at almost no cost and drain the assets. this is a protocol-level issue and a severe oversight. 3/ in any security incident, the first step should be to investigate the exploit and protect user funds. instead, the resupply team’s first reaction was to push losses onto insurance pool depositors, while silencing and mocking those who disagreed. i have been in defi for years. i have never seen a team act with such a lack of accountability. 4/ the insurance pool was never meant to cover technical failures by the development team. if protocol creators start treating user funds as a backstop for their own mistakes, they are effectively saying that depositors exist to take the hit. insurance is meant to cover black swan events and market risk, not internal negligence. 5/ there is no defi precedent where an insurance pool covers damage from a bug caused by the protocol team. if resupply intended that, it should have been clearly stated in the docs. it was not. instead, the team continues to twist the narrative in discord while muting anyone who pushes back. 6/ curve and crvusd benefited materially from resupply. they should not be allowed to walk away from this. the exploit was not a market issue. it was a critical design and deployment flaw. responsibility lies with the team, not the users. 7/ c2 stepping up personally to cover around 1.5 million dollars shows character. but that cost should not fall on one individual. it should come from convex or yearn’s treasury if they still stand by the project they helped launch. 8/ i respect what michael has done for curve, and i appreciate his effort to mediate throughout this situation. but that does not mean i will back down. 9/ what i and every resupply investor need now is a fair resolution. return the user funds that were lost due to your own mistake. do the right thing.