Update: Reimburse Risk Assessors for Undue Loss from Claim 113

The previous discussion for this topic is located here: Proposal: Reimburse Risk Assessors for Undue Loss from Claim 113

The consensus before moving forward was to wait and see how reimbursement would go as of 6/15/22.

Timeline of Events

The claimant of claim 113 only stated to consider reimbursement of Nexus if Rari reimbursed them. With the veto, the failure to pass the re-proposal, and the official FEI newsletter stating that no new proposals are in discussion, it’s safe to move forward on our discussion of a partial restitution of the Rari stakers through the community fund.

The mutual has recognized the undue loss that can occur from the shortcomings of V1’s lack of partial payouts previously (see Snapshot) and the community fund has been utilized to make up for those shortcomings. With capacity being one of the biggest issues plaguing the expansion of the coverage industry, it could be very damaging to the protocol to ignore the undue damage to risk assessors in this situation while other members of Nexus and stakers in other protocols are being given more attention.

As an update on Ease’s arNXM stakers, we’ve had to withdraw a good bit from our positions to allow users to stop staking, but it looks like the majority are at least waiting to see how this will end.

Thank you for moving this discussion forward. It’s important that members have the opportunity to review and discuss the circumstances of Claim 113, with the ultimate decision made by members through a Snapshot vote.

In the original Proposal: Reimburse Risk Assessors for Undue Loss from Claim 113, the case was made that:

  • Risk assessors lost millions of USD in NXM more than actual loss.
  • A partial payout was possible.
  • The policy was automatically accepted with a small % of quorum before discussion concluded.
  • The community fund has a history of compensating users for shortcomings of the technology.

As we revisit this proposal, it’s important to address each of these points. The mutual’s mission is to build an ecosystem in which anyone can protect anyone else by sharing risk.

All members value honesty and transparency, and in the spirit of this, I’ll provide a response that I hope will inform member discussion and the use of discretion regarding the payout for Claim 113.

Risk assessors lost millions of USD in NXM more than actual loss

No one disputes that Risk Assessors had NXM burned that exceeded the actual loss the member incurred. All members can review past staking burns for claim payouts on this Dune dashboard. There was a total of 78,986.22 NXM burned to facilitate the payouts for both Rari Capital claims.

However, because partial claim payments are not possible in Nexus V1, Risk Assessors have taken on the risk of having more NXM burned than the actual loss. This limitation was known when Protocol Cover launched and has been widely communicated within the mutual before the Rari Capital claim payout.

The technical limitations in Nexus V1 do introduce more risk for those underwrite cover and act as Risk Assessors; however, the “Material” definition in Protocol Cover wording v1.0, past statements, and documentation all present the risks of acting as a Risk Assessor and the technical limitations of the current claims process.

This guidance was included in both the Annotated Protocol Cover wording available in the Nexus docs and in past discussions such as this one with bobby3535 on Discord.

Source: Annotated Protocol Cover wording v1.0

The language that appears in the Supplementary Claims Amount Guidance section of Protocol Cover wording v1.0, as drafted and approved by members, was included to future proof Protocol Cover wording, so the supplementary guidance could inform votes once the technical ability to pay partial claims was enabled.

A partial payout was possible.

Contrary to this statement, partial payouts are not possible through Claims Assessment in Nexus V1. Throughout 2021 and 2022, members have asked about the mutual’s ability to pay partial claims, and the answer has always been that partial claim payments are not yet possible in Nexus V1.

You can find many instances of this, but you can see my answer to a member regarding the 20% loss requirement and partial claims (as of 29 April 2021) and Hugh’s updated roadmap (as of 30 April 2021) where he outlines that partial claims are in the future roadmap but were not the immediate focus at the time. Both of these statements were made after Protocol Cover was drafted, discussed, reviewed, and approved through on-chain Proposal 131–Protocol Cover launched on 26 April 2021.

The policy was automatically accepted with a small % of quorum before discussion concluded.

Defifrog submitted Claim 113 on 12 May 2022, and an announcement was made on Discord on the same day.

Claims follow the process as outlined in the docs, where:

The voting period lasts for a minimum of 36 hours. After this point the vote automatically ends on the earliest of either when:

  • voting stakes of greater than 10x the cover amount have voted; or
  • 72 hours have passed.

The stake weighted voting outcome then determines the claim result. A claim is escalated to a full member vote if either:

  • Voting consensus is below 70%; or
  • Voting weight is less than 5x the Cover Amount.

In the case of Claim 113, only 25,019 NXM (3% of Quorum) voted on the claim during the initial voting period. Since the voting weight was less than 5x the Cover Amount, the vote transitioned to a full-member vote, which lasts “for a minimum of 36 hours and ends when either the total voting stake reaches 10x the Cover Amount or 72 hours have passed, whichever occurs first.”

When the vote transitioned to a full-member vote on 15 May, an announcement was made.

The claim was accepted after the initial 72 hours passed and the voting weight was less than 5x the Cover Amount and the claim was escalated to a full-member vote that lasted for 72 hours. The claim was first filed on 12 May, escalated to a full-member vote on 15 May, and approved and paid on 18 May. Over the six days the claim was open for discussion and voting, members discussed the claim. On 17 May 2022, Robert began the discussion regarding Claim 113.

In my view, all members should be treated equally. Denying a claim where the cover holder had provided proof of loss that confirmed they held an impacted account, suffered a loss, and met the losses as required by the “Material” definition in the Protocol Cover wording would not be equal treatment.

The proposed work around would have required cooperation on the member’s behalf, where they had to:

  • Buy another Rari Protocol Cover policy
  • Pay a higher premium (as NXM had been unstaked at that point)
  • Assume their claim would be paid, even after having a legitimate claim denied through the established Claims Assessment process

The community fund has a history of compensating users for shortcomings of the technology.

Claim 102 was used as the precedent for providing Risk Assessors with compensation, but the situation in this case was different. Unlike Claim 113, the member who filed Claim 102 provided proof of loss that confirmed they held an impacted account, suffered a loss, but did not meet the losses as required by the “Material” definition in the Protocol Cover wording. Because of this, their claim was denied.

However, members recognized that this member suffered a genuine loss, and members put forth a proposal to use funds from the DAO treasury to compensate this member. In the case of the CREAM Finance exploit, the likelihood of compensation from the CREAM team was high and reimbursement was provided to the mutual once reimbursement was announced.

I provided my thoughts ahead of this vote given that other claims where a genuine loss had occurred were paid. From my viewpoint at the time, all claims should be treated equally and I shared this with fellow members.

In the case of the CREAM Finance exploit, the likelihood of a compensation from the CREAM protocol team was high, the member held an active cover policy and experienced a loss of funds but did not meet the requirement to have their claim paid through Claims Assessment, and compensation would offset the payout from the DAO treasury.

In the case of the Rari Finance exploit, compensation from the Tribe protocol team will not occur, the member held an active cover policy and experienced a loss of funds as well as met the requirement as defined in the “Material” section, the risk of paying the full claim amount was communicated previously, and there will be no compensation to offset the payout from the DAO treasury.

These two claims are quite different given this context.

The community fund should compensate risk assessors for their undue loss.

In the last section of the proposal, two statements can be highlighted for this discussion.

“It’s extremely important to be fair and follow the terms in this situation.”

Past claims that met the 20% loss requirement but did not represent 100% of the total cover amount were paid to cover holders who provided proof of loss that confirmed they held an impacted account, suffered a loss, and met the losses as required by the “Material” definition in the Protocol Cover wording.

Those claims followed the Claims Assessment process as outlined in the Nexus docs, just as Claim 113 did.

All claims should be evaluated and assessed equally, according to the cover wording. Making an exception in the case of Claim 113 to stop the on-chain claims process and handling this claim in a different manner would not be the same, equal treatment members have given to other claims, including other Rari claims.

“The community fund has all the means to compensate stakers.”

In the proposal, there is a request for 43,940 wNXM be allocated from the Nexus DAO treasury (formerly referred to as the “Community Fund”) to make Risk Assessors whole.

To give some context on the funding available in the Nexus DAO treasury, there is 550,681 NXM currently held in the treasury with 441,771 NXM reserved for existing activities, as determined by the “How should we utilize the wNXM purchased during Operation TM-12?” Snapshot vote:

  • 327,219.7797 NXM allocated for Foundation funding
  • 60,000 NXM reserved for staking in Nexus Mutual
  • 54,551 reserved for long-term aligned (LTA) member group

The DAO treasury has 108,910 wNXM and 107,367 LDO in assets. The two active Nexus Hubs will be due for renewal in August 2022, and the budget for those two hubs are not included in the above allocation.

An allocation to Risk Assessors for Claim 113 would reduce DAO treasury funding by 40.34% in wNXM terms. The current USD value of the treasury as of 11 July 2022 is $1,784,846.69, which includes the value of the wNXM and LDO noted above. Reimbursing Risk Assessors would result in a 38.79% reduction of the DAO treasury from $1,784,846.69 to $1,092,442.21 USD. This funding is the sole funding for the DAO going forward.

Next Steps

Members can review and discuss this proposal for the next 7 days. Once members have discussed this issue, it will transition to a Snapshot vote, where members can voice their opinion through a vote that will occur once the 7-day discussion period has ended.

1 Like

A follow up on another point made in the previous post, for context.

Other protocols are currently working on ways to compensate their risk assessors for unfair loss from other events, resulting in very bad optics for Nexus when capacity is the biggest bottleneck in growth.

Two examples were provided in the proposal: InsurAce and Risk Harbor.

As an update on those payouts to date:

  • InsurAce has provided $300,000 USD in compensation to their underwriters, which represents 6.19% of the proposed compensation, which is slated to be paid out over the next 12 months.
  • Risk Harbor has not compensated any underwriters.

Ultimately, a decision about compensation for Risk Assessors is up to mutual members. Within the mutual, members have the ability to make these decisions through governance, and the outcome is always honored.

Thank you for the very detailed response @BraveNewDeFi! It should give members all the information needed to make an educated decision.

I think, ignoring all other parts of the situation and focusing only on the future of the protocol, it’s important to show that Nexus cares about risk assessors in extreme circumstances as much as policy holders, but of course don’t think this should hamstring the DAO funding.

Hugh suggested some sort of compromise here Proposal: Reimburse Risk Assessors for Undue Loss from Claim 113 - #2 by Hugh. Would you personally be more inclined to vote for a compromise of something like 50% of the undue loss? Or is there another source of reimbursement that would work better? I think some sort of compromise on the snapshot should definitely be an option.

Out of principle, I wouldn’t support any reimbursement. The risk of having NXM burned to facilitate a claim payout for the total covered amount, so long as proof of loss provided is equal to or greater than 20% of the total covered amount, has been present since Protocol Cover launched. This issue was somewhat mitigated when proof of loss was introduced, but the protocol does not have the ability to pay partial claims. This has been widely communicated over the last year as well.

If we apply an exception for a larger claim when past claims that have meet the conditions in the cover wording (i.e., loss greater than 20% of total covered amount), then we are not treating all claims equal.

My personal opinion is that reimbursement of any amount would not be appropriate. I’ve had NXM burned to facilitate Yearn and CREAM payouts, and I knew the risks ahead of staking my NXM. When proof of loss wasn’t required, claims were paid out for the Yearn loss event. When loss was required but a member lost less than 100% of their total cover amount but greater than 20%, claims were paid. The cover wording is the social contract we agree to when we buy cover, stake NXM as a Risk Assessor, and/or stake NXM to participate as a Claims Assessor.

Claims Assessors reviewed this criteria when reviewing those past claims, and anyone can review this information in the Claims History section of the Nexus docs.

If Risk Assessors who staked wNXM/NXM through Armor were not aware of this risk, that’s unfortunate but not justification for reimbursement. Again, I don’t think this indicates that I don’t care about Risk Assessors. I’ve spent countless hours updating and expanding the Nexus docs, answering questions on Discord, Telegram, Reddit, Twitter, etc., and educating people about how to get involved within the mutual, as well as the risks that come with certain roles, like Risk Assessment. I care about all members and work hard to educate fellow mutual members, so they understand the benefits and risks of being actively involved.

If you’d like to propose a partial reimbursement option and set an amount that you find appropriate, I’d be happy to include it in the vote when it goes live on Snapshot tomorrow.


Even if you’re fully aware of the potential risk, that’s completely different from the worst case scenario actualizing and the mutual not taking reasonable discretionary steps to minimize damage to its users.

The DeFi coverage industry is still brand new and every past claim, especially the largest payout of all-time, will be analyzed by future institutional risk assessors to determine whether they want to join the ecosystem.

They will see that there were more steps that could have been taken to minimize damage, the wording of the agreement has been interpreted both ways by users, and there was little debate before it defaulted to paying out.

I believe it’s important to show that, even if there are shortcomings in the code, the users are Nexus’ top priority.

I would like to propose an option for 50% (~22k wNXM) to be reimbursed to Rari stakers in the manner proposed by Hugh here Proposal: Reimburse Risk Assessors for Undue Loss from Claim 113 - #2 by Hugh.

Just wanted to clarify that those 441,771 NXM are the result of the buybacks that occured earlier this year. These funds were transferred from the Capital Pool to the Community Fund to facilitate the process. So I wouldn’t consider them part of the CF at all.

Therefore the proposal is asking for 43 940 wNXM out of 108 910 in our Community Fund (40%).

As a reminder, the funds in the CF were a one-time mint in early 2021. It is supposed to last for years and reward/incentivize contributors.

I personally find the proposal very expensive for Nexus. Even half of that is very expensive, + Nexus would have to do the same thing for other Risk Assessors.

1 Like

This proposal has transitioned to a Snapshot vote that is open for voting from Thursday (21 July) at 1pm EST / 5pm UTC and will close on Tuesday (26 July) at 1pm EST / 5pm UTC.

Snapshot vote
Should we reimburse Risk Assessors for undue loss from Claim 113?

Can we repost this proposal? The options as described are very biased toward one side and our multisig’s NXM (not stakers in arNXM because I don’t believe it’d be too fair for that pot to vote on getting a reimbursement but NXM Ease is holding) was actually still in wNXM (https://etherscan.io/address/0x1f28ed9d4792a567dad779235c2b766ab84d8e33) so our vote won’t be counted.

I’m against this proposal but the language used in the snapshot is indeed biased.
Care should be taken to not include commentary in voting options, such as

’ as inability to pay partial claims was a known risk. ’

Is this not going to be adjusted before the weekend? The proposal only has 24 hours left after the weekend is over.

Snapshot proposals can’t be edited after they are published. I’m more than happy to delete the current Snapshot proposal and have you post the reimbursement proposal on Snapshot.

The best way to reach me is through Discord (BraveNewDeFi#0027). I can delete the current poll and you can post your Snapshot proposal. After your proposal is live, just send me a message and I’ll provide an update in the Nexus Mutual Discord.

Thank you! At this point do you think it would be better to post after the weekend to get the most participation possible?

EDIT: Talked to Lee and I’m gonna be waiting until Monday to post the proposal to have the full week for voting

Robert has updated the Snapshot proposal, and it is open for voting from 25 July at 1:36pm EST / 5:36pm UTC to 30 July 2022 at 3:00pm EST / 8:00pm UTC.

You can vote on the Snapshot Vote through the link below.
Should We Reimburse Risk Assessors for Undue Loss From Claim 113?

1 Like

I really appreciate the big turnout on the vote everyone!

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.