Unresolved concerns

• Confusion and frustration from ordinary users about why their COMP balances and claim ability were hidden, and whether this compromised decentralization or their rightful earnings.— Theo, Andrew, newdude05
• Uncertainty over the exact severity and duration of impact on integrators if both Prop 63 and Prop 64 passed together (roughly 2 days of reverts).— jmo, bugduino
• Unclear process for how governance handles cancelling a proposal (63) once a substitute (64) is enacted, including the role of the multisig versus community vote removal.— ratankaliani
• Whether picking up/adjusting unclaimed rewards for affected users after the fix is fair or compatible with decentralization principles.— Andrew

Notable participants

• jmoStarted the discussion thread, linked the proposal, and later pressed for clarity on integration risk severity.
• dvfRepresented OUSD, ran simulations showing breakage, strongly opposed Prop 63, and later confirmed OUSD's mitigation.
• bantegIdentified the technical flaw (revert in grantCompInternal) that would break integrations like Yearn strategies.
• storming0xProposed a less intrusive no-op alternative to the revert-based fix.
• allthecolorsRelayed and championed an alternative filtering approach that mitigated integrator concerns.
• bugduinoRepresented Idle Finance, detailed downstream integration risks, and endorsed the alternative filter approach.
• TylerEtherProposer of Prop 64, explained the fix's mechanics and reassured users about COMP accrual and claims.
• rleshnerExplained the rationale behind supporting Prop 63 as a precautionary tool alongside Prop 64.
• arr00Clarified proposal cancellation mechanics as the whitelisted proposer who ultimately canceled Prop 63.
• TheoA confused and frustrated end user demanding clarity on his COMP balance during the disabled period.