DRAFT CIP: Actutal Usage of Cover Protocol for Gov Vote #3 ($COVER to/for COVER)

Hi, as briefly suggested in the discord chat with everything that has been happening lately with the aftermaths of our beloved COVER being hacked. I’m suggesting on voting to implement insurance coverage for our own $COVER protocol itself, basically, providing $COVER for $COVER so users can then buy CLAIM/NOCLAIM for $COVER Protocol:

Alot of people have voiced their opinion on how to resolve the bug breach which occurred this week, we all are looking for a way to carry out the best outcome for whats happened so that we can get carry on and grow $COVER as a community… but how?

There are so many questions and ideas coming from our community; but theres nothing to formally action what the community wants apart from the Admin and Dev team, who have actually done a great job with $COVER, to be hacked and then have the hacker return the funds, that in itself shows how cool we are as a community. I can imagine developing whilst providing insurance and assessing each individual one-on-one claim for the DEFI crypto space would be quite a job!

Should we suggest a proposal which improves or helps governance to of the $COVER community? Is this not the purpose of a governance token? That we too have some part or should be able to have a say in all that is happening? Why have we not given ourselves a voice for this long?

We provide insurance and coverage for other protocols, why cant we provide insurance coverage for our protocol itself? So in times where we feel exploited or issues arise. Do we then turn to another DEFI-insurance company to assess matters on what we are going through as a community? Or wait for someone to determine a snapshot votings etc on our behalf? What if they dont have our best interest for the best outcome?

I think this could be a start to addressing and finding a resolution for the $COVER community. (Therefore we could have CLAIM/NOCLAIM) for $COVER protocol… and we could address these issues formally and have them reviewed on a 1-by-1 basis as everyone’s situation is different; for people who have been hodling for years, for new comers and for those who dont even know what $COVER is.

By being able to $COVER OUR $COVER, It would be beneficial to our community and also increase value of $COVER as a whole; most governance tokens have previously stated that they have 0 value, but theoretically, governance tokens are priced as high as someone in the DEFI realises the endless value it can hold; to be able to implement and have a say over decisions in one of the biggest insurance protocols to date! The token holders have authority and power to determine the structures of that specific Protocol, This would then give the community official delegated powers upon formal decisions where we would have control over the authorisation of our smart contracts / AuthorisationOnly etc;


*And also maybe burn the big token supply?



Finally, our saviour!


+1 vote

very good suggestion miss :+1:

This is indeed a good idea, insurance covering its own insurance.brings accountability and builds trust for the community and investors.
Great idea.thanks for the contribution. #LeifengWay

Forgive me If I have read the proposal wrong, but should Holders of Cover Have to buy Claim tokens?, would this not be a great incentive for the Govenance token itself to include its own insurance, this would be a first yes?, A token with its own built in coverage as standard.

That would be a great idea as well :smiley: Thank you!!

I do think that in order to recover from this is got to be a bold move to silence the critics, make heads turns. Get the token in the Crypto press for all the right reasons, a FUCK YOU to all the people calling rug pull and Coming back stronger, it cant be a like for like!

This has to be voted please?

The only way to shut up every single critic would be to buyback Cover with the ETH in the actual state.
Snapshot would give 100% legitimacy to the rug pull idea, and tbh even I would start to think the worst fraud case scenario if this happens.

You mean actual market value of token at time of hack?

But this would legitimise people buying in with knowledge or involvement of hack, so where do you draw the line. There has to be a snapshot.

Buying in with knowledge or involvement of hack? The token is literally 14$ right now, there is no buying, everybody with involvement with the hack has sold everything. Team probably included.

The literal most fair way to do it is to let market balance itself right now, and let the price go up as the team says they are going ahead instead of rolling all over the investors with a snapshot.

I mean, this is zero right now, same starting point for everybody. The snapshot is literally the opposite.

Not now, anyone would be stupid to buy now, that’s why price is so low, I’ts dead in the water as it stands. I mean immediately after the hack, If I was involved it’s prime time to buy in straight after the hack as news spreads and price drops, so the snapshot should be taken before hack, but I also get what do you do with innocent buyers buying after what they thought was a genuine dip. It’s a tough one, there is no easy answer, either way you’re gonna get backlash. The current price is not a true reflection of token value if this is handled correctly and this needs sorting for current holders. It’s too late to let it ride, that window has passed.

1 Like

So your solution is great for the buyers that bought in cheap as low as $50?, but people that sold just have to suck it up. What about the guy that paid $1000+ for the token then saw it going down to £200 and sold., No easy answer, Bruce.

Have Binance agreed to trade the new token?
Will this new token be accepted by the current Exchanges or could it be revoked by all or any?

yes, we’re all forgot that we can cover ourself as well lel. Btw, did anyone ask Nexus if they will pay out for this hack?

Yes COVER needs COVER :grinning:

If Binance Refuses to list to the New token, what compensation plans are there for holders?
Effectively No Exchange will list this token… so its worthless.

I would say only 2 options going forward

  1. Governance token itself to include its own insurance as I suggested, Binance will not bail the new token out of their funds again. We also need assurances Binance will Re-list it.
  2. Compensate all holders for the Teams Failings with the Funds, after all the Hacker returned all funds so Cover currently has no losses.
1 Like

As it stands Binance as quite rightly compensated sellers and buyers after the Hack, I applaud Binance for doing this, Binance will be rewarded with future reputation in tact and loyal customers in their droves for having an insurance pot to cover losses.

Holders of Cover however will get screwed, which is very unfair so I would appreciate some feedback from the Cover Team as to what the plans are going forward to the holders of this token who did not sell / buy.

1 Like

Does anyone have any info on where to go to exchange my Cover_old for new covers?