Bedrock's got users' profits locked up, but whose terms are we talking about?
Check out this wild story from a user that I read multiple times and still can't wrap my head around.
This guy was doing some arbitrage when he noticed that the uniBTC issued by Bedrock was totally out of sync, thought it was a golden opportunity, and jumped in. But as soon as he entered the trade, the project team pulled the liquidity pool right out from under him. Suddenly, he was sitting on tens of thousands of dollars in uniBTC with no way to cash out. He wanted to use a cross-chain bridge to move to another chain, but the system popped up a message: "Transaction requires project team signature authorization." He reached out to customer support, and they straight-up told him: the multi-signature key for uniBTC's cross-chain transactions is held by Bedrock, and without their permission, users can't move their assets to any other chain. @Bedrock
All exit routes were completely blocked. He went to the project team, and they said: "We can let you withdraw your principal, but whether you get back the arbitrage profits is still under review." Who decides the difference between principal and profit? The project team calls the shots. Is it legal for them to withhold profits? I scoured Bedrock's user agreement and couldn't find a single clause saying, "Arbitrage profits belong to the project team." #bedrock $BR
After nearly a month of dragging it out, he finally got his principal back, but the profits were still snatched away. When someone asked him why he didn't fight for his rights, he said: "Forget it, getting back my principal is already a win." What kind of mindset does a user have to be in to think, "Getting back my principal is already good enough"?
This isn't an isolated incident. Others have reported that Bedrock pulled the same stunt in the last round, blocking users' exits. Putting in money is a one-click wonder, but cashing out requires someone to sign off, and profits can be seized at will. The cross-chain bridge is totally in the project team's hands, with all exits firmly under their control.
For a protocol that claims to be "decentralized," users need project team approval to access their own funds, and profits can be withheld at their discretion. What’s the difference from a centralized exchange? The only difference is that centralized exchanges at least have a customer service line you can call, and if something goes wrong, you can file a complaint. Here? You don’t even know who to complain to.
Check out this wild story from a user that I read multiple times and still can't wrap my head around.
This guy was doing some arbitrage when he noticed that the uniBTC issued by Bedrock was totally out of sync, thought it was a golden opportunity, and jumped in. But as soon as he entered the trade, the project team pulled the liquidity pool right out from under him. Suddenly, he was sitting on tens of thousands of dollars in uniBTC with no way to cash out. He wanted to use a cross-chain bridge to move to another chain, but the system popped up a message: "Transaction requires project team signature authorization." He reached out to customer support, and they straight-up told him: the multi-signature key for uniBTC's cross-chain transactions is held by Bedrock, and without their permission, users can't move their assets to any other chain. @Bedrock
All exit routes were completely blocked. He went to the project team, and they said: "We can let you withdraw your principal, but whether you get back the arbitrage profits is still under review." Who decides the difference between principal and profit? The project team calls the shots. Is it legal for them to withhold profits? I scoured Bedrock's user agreement and couldn't find a single clause saying, "Arbitrage profits belong to the project team." #bedrock $BR
After nearly a month of dragging it out, he finally got his principal back, but the profits were still snatched away. When someone asked him why he didn't fight for his rights, he said: "Forget it, getting back my principal is already a win." What kind of mindset does a user have to be in to think, "Getting back my principal is already good enough"?
This isn't an isolated incident. Others have reported that Bedrock pulled the same stunt in the last round, blocking users' exits. Putting in money is a one-click wonder, but cashing out requires someone to sign off, and profits can be seized at will. The cross-chain bridge is totally in the project team's hands, with all exits firmly under their control.
For a protocol that claims to be "decentralized," users need project team approval to access their own funds, and profits can be withheld at their discretion. What’s the difference from a centralized exchange? The only difference is that centralized exchanges at least have a customer service line you can call, and if something goes wrong, you can file a complaint. Here? You don’t even know who to complain to.