We’ve been building DeFi on Sonic because we believed in its long-term vision and wanted to be part of that story.
I’ve already shared my view on the proposal itself, so I won’t repeat all of that here. This post is a request for clarity from Sonic Labs/the Foundation, given how big and precedent-setting this decision is. I believe it’s reasonable for builders, LPs, and token holders to ask Sonic Labs for a more explicit position. Concretely, I’d love clear answers to:
-
Where is the official venue for governance? Where should we expect official statements from Sonic Labs? Is it “X” or Discourse?
-
After community feedback, what’s Sonic Labs ’ current thinking on the subject? There is only a public message on X saying Labs will abstain from voting, but does SonicLabs support this in principle? Abstaining without a rationale leaves a lot of room for confusion
-
Was SonicLabs (or any Sonic team member) involved in ideation and drafting for this proposal?
-
Does SonicLabs view making Beets LPs whole as more important than Multichain victims?
-
If this passes, will there be guidelines for future hack allocations? Is this something SonicLabs will take responsibility for from here on?
-
Is there any conflict-of-interest information the community should know? What is the % of impacted LP linked to Sonic Labs wallets, team wallets, investors, or close partners?
-
Can we get clarity on the current thinking on the remaining airdrop funds, treasury management, and exploit policies?
My concern is the clarity of governance and precedent at the chain level. As a team building serious financial infrastructure, we need to understand the rules of the game: what the Foundation considers acceptable use of community capital and how similar cases will be treated in the future.
Given the time-sensitive nature of this vote, I’d appreciate a direct, consolidated response from Sonic Labs on this forum.
Rafael – Origin