Public Poll on Claim Re-vote for the Excluded Claim Cases (Batch #2) 

Dear Community,  

We would like to present a proposal and arguments for a Re-Vote on the recent UST De-Peg Excluded Claims 2 (Claims submitted after deadline) based on the discussions and feedback from the relevant stakeholders (impacted claimants, stakers). 

This poll is to decide whether or not the wording of the recent vote was misleading.  

If the community agrees that the wording was misleading, there will be a re-vote on this Group Claim.  

History 

Following the recent UST De-Peg event that was triggered on the 13th May 2022, a deadline was set for Claim Submissions by the 20th May 2022. This was done in accordance with the Group Claim process outlined in our documentation. Valid claims submitted before the deadline were processed in accordance with our documentation, and a vote on the claim was taken by Claims Assessors (INSUR Stakers). A report was produced by the Advisory Board with a recommendation to Accept these claims. The Claims Assessors voted to Accept this Group Claim. Seven individual claims were submitted after the 20th May deadline. Instead of automatically rejecting these claims, the Advisory Board saw fit to offer them their own Group Claim vote by the Claims Assessors. The Claims Assessors voted to Reject these claims with 90% of the vote.  

Details of this group claim can be found here: https://app.insurace.io/Claims/GroupClaim?proposalChain=BSC&proposalId=4 

Context 

Following the vote, it was brought to the attention of the InsurAce.io team that the wording of the voting page used from our documentation had been updated between the 20th May and the vote on the 28th June. It is claimed that this wording sufficiently influenced the vote, and therefore they are requesting a re-vote.  

Wording Used in the Vote: 

Wording on our documentation from the 20th May vs current documentation at the time of the vote.  

There has been wide and in-depth debates in the community on this matter. 
 
All community discussions can be found in our discord channel:  https://discord.com/channels/778972805127471154/973549391124254740 

To solve this problem effectively in a fair manner, it was suggested to create a public poll for our community to ask whether this case should be taken to a re-vote, as a reference to decide the next steps.  

A re-vote will not be applied to any other completed claim votings.  

Argument for a Re-Vote (Submitted by Claimant): 

The UST depeg cover documentation states “The claim request together with Proof of loss must be submitted during the Cover Period or within 15 days after the Cover expires.” [1] 

In the main Group Claim, the advisory board recommended accepting claims. Under the premise of “uncertain and complex nature” a requirement was imposed for submission by May 20 [4]. The blog post sets and justifies that decision to “[take] proactive and expedited measures to process all claims as soon as possible.” It does not outline/pre-empt rejection of claims made after that day, it just says that this date is set to allow expedited processing. A group vote was made to pay depeg claims with a deadline of 7 days following the depeg event. This was put to vote under proposal 2 which passed. This proposal made no comment restricting further payout under the same logic and supporting documents. The May 20 date does not appear in proposal 2. 

The owners of contract coverage that were not able to comply with the 7 day deadline request the same wording used in the vote 2 proposal be applied in their cases. We would also like acknowledgement that the wording of vote proposal 4 was disingenuous and unfairly crafted to elicit a reject. 

Specifically: 

  • Proposal 2 highlights the recommendation to accept these claims 
  • No mention of a deadline 

In contrast: 

  • Proposal 4 highlights “claim requests submitted… after the official claim deadline of May 20th”: 
  • without any acknowledgement of the original contract terms [1]  
  • without any further justification of the authority used to “officiate” such deadline 
  • In case of rejection, Proposal 4 includes the following “If the payout is… Rejected: All claims submitted after May 20th, … will be rejected without appeal” which is a harsh deviation from allowing for appeal and for the Advisory Board to make a final decision regarding payout 
  • The May 20 date referenced in proposal 4 does not appear in proposal 2. The intention of setting the date May 20 as outlined in [4] to expedite processing was successful as 98% of claims have been paid out.  

References: 

Argument against a Re-Vote (Submitted by Staker): 

There is some ambiguity here since it has been clearly shown in the discussion that the wording of the docs have changed since the 20th May until the vote.  

However, a clear deadline was set, in one of the most widely publicized crypto events to ever happen (the collapse of Terra). And InsurAce were very open and public with discussions on this topic throughout.  

Deadlines in their nature imply acceptance vs rejection, otherwise they would not carry any incentive. By definition they are the latest time that something can happen. Even the origins of the term come from a line drawn around a prison where prisoners would be shot if they crossed the line. Literally Dead-Line.  

The wording included in the proposal “Late submission will be rejected without appeal.” appears to be the core issue here. As that was the major change in the documentation since the 20th May, changed from simply that there may be a deadline set. The fact that there was a vote at all suggests that this ‘new’wording was not followed.  

A deadline of 7 days (10 days from first announcements) was more than sufficient for 96% of claimants, who accounted for 99% of the total claimed for the UST de-peg.  

Suggesting that voters are not capable of doing their own research before voting suggests that the voters are lazy or stupid. To be voting in DeFi and understand how to do that shows they are mostly competent and literate.  

The change in the docs did not cause the Claims to be automatically rejected. There was a vote to accept or reject, which clearly negates the idea that the new wording was followed.  

Although this new wording was included in the vote proposal, the claims were visible with links to descriptions, and no media from InsurAce suggested a Reject vote.  

Finally, there was no financial incentive for us stakers to reject as their assets were not facing being used for payouts. A re-vote is not necessary.  

Poll 

Based on the above context, do you agree that the wording was sufficiently misleading and should call for a re-vote on this claim case? 

Cast your vote via any of the following poll locations: 

Twitter

Discord

Telegram

The poll will start at 9am UTC on the 6th July and will run for 48 hours.  

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top