I second @HijackJetten , your data does look questionable. In my case it’s even easier to see — my collateral is sole cbETH liuqidated for nearly nothing. Total sum of cbETH seized is 4.05, makes 4.5359ETH at 1.12 we all know by heart now, not 4.3382 displayed. You could clearly see the oracle discrepancy where cbETH stays constant at $2210.33 for days when ETH ranges from $1965 to $2064
2 Likes
@HijackJetten Acknowledged, thank you for bringing this to our attention. Our historical price data, where we quote the USD value of collateral seized and debt repaid, may not be accurate/granular enough. Standby, will update the app with fresh oracle data.
UPDATE
The issue has been resolved. Assets are now priced using Chainlink oracle prices at the time of each liquidation, independent of how they were stored in our backend.
1 Like
100% agree. Thank you for posting.
1 Like
When can $mfam holders vote about this ?
all the comments from mfam holders disagree with that plan and would like the plan for the distribution of 310k to stkMFAM holders
Separate the cbETH Remediation from the MFAM Migration — These Are Not the Same Issue
The current recovery proposal bundles two completely unrelated matters into a single governance action:
- Emergency remediation for 181 borrowers who lost $2.68M due to the cbETH oracle misconfiguration — a crisis the protocol caused.
- MFAM-to-stkWELL token migration at 1:1.5, Apollo DAO wind-down, and governance consolidation — routine protocol housekeeping that has been on the table since Moonriver was deprecated on January 29.
These need to be separated immediately.
Why Bundling Is a Problem
It dilutes urgency. Right now there are 181 people staring at wiped accounts because of a governance proposal the DAO pushed through with a basic math error in AI-generated code. That is an emergency. The MFAM migration is not an emergency — it’s a planned transition that has been in the works since Chainlink sunset oracle feeds on Moonriver. Combining them into one proposal forces affected borrowers to wait while the community debates MFAM conversion ratios and snapshot timing. Our money is sitting at zero while people argue about whether 1:1.5 is fair or 1:1 is enough.
It complicates the vote. Some MFAM holders may vote yes because they want the stkWELL conversion, not because they care about cbETH remediation. Some affected borrowers may vote no because the remediation terms are inadequate, but doing so would also block the MFAM migration. Tying these together creates perverse incentives and muddies what should be a straightforward accountability vote.
It creates the appearance of opportunism. Whether intentional or not, using the urgency of a crisis you caused to push through a governance consolidation that benefits the protocol’s organizational structure looks bad. The MFAM migration gives the DAO access to the Apollo Treasury — the same treasury that’s being used to fund the $310K “immediate” remediation. These interests are intertwined in ways that should make everyone uncomfortable.
It’s already causing friction in the forum. Multiple commenters have pointed out that the MFAM discussion is pulling focus from the cbETH remediation. Some are accusing MFAM speculators of buying up tokens after the proposal was announced. Others are arguing that MFAM holders shouldn’t receive anything. None of this has anything to do with making 181 borrowers whole.
What I’m Asking For
Split the proposal into two separate governance votes:
- cbETH Remediation — standalone vote focused exclusively on compensating affected borrowers. Full position restoration, in-kind compensation (cbETH/weETH/WETH, not USDC), accelerated timeline using available treasury and Aera funds, and no expiry on claims.
- MFAM-to-stkWELL Migration — separate vote on the Apollo DAO wind-down and governance consolidation. This can proceed on its own timeline without holding cbETH victims hostage.
The people who lost their life savings to a protocol error should not have to wait while the community debates the future of a deprecated governance token. These are different problems. They deserve different proposals, different discussions, and different votes.
Remediation first. Everything else second.
Written by @vitalsine
Since he has been silenced, I am posting on his behalf.
2 Likes
What is currently up on https://cbeth-remediation.vercel.app/ suggests an “equal-per-user payout with cap-at-owed and iterative redistribution.”
The proposal that passed says “The USDC will be swapped to ETH, which will then be combined with 19.90098 ETH recovered by BitcoinVN from the attacker to partially repay affected wallets proportionally”.
The two strategies of “equal-per-user” and “proportionally” don’t seem to match.
What’s this “attacker” I see referred to every now and then? My understanding of cbETH issue is that it was caused by poor programming practices, though unlikely intentional and even if so, benefitting a range of liquidators, not any specific benefactor.
Something, I am very disappointed and concern about is that not only are the borrowers losing out on potential opportunities and yields right now from their capital is still not remediated, but also assuming we will be repaid in dollar value from the incident rather than the actual assets liquidated.
According to https://cbeth-remediation.vercel.app/ , this number doesn’t reflect the dynamic changes in the tokens being held by borrowers . It only does a snapshot from that those three days of incident.
3rd, In my portfolio view, even though it is completed liquidated, still shows a negative borrowed amount I owe that is accruing interest daily. It is like a double loss for me in that case.
I feel like we’re being punished for an incident that was accidentally brought upon us. How can we have good faith in future supplying’s if in the back of our heads, there is an underlying fear.
100% you are right!
Sorry guys, I asked on the first day if the mfam discussion wouldn’t be better in a Telegram group or Discord…very poorly handled by the team…you are right, its very disrespectfull to the cbETH borrowers
and neither of us has received a reply yet
1 Like
I would also like an update, as we are just referred here.
2 Likes
still no vote for mfam holders…you are on the best way to kill your project !
mfam community and cbETH borrowers want some updates…do you think we are stupid @Luke ?
1 Like
Any news here? Very frustrating
2 Likes
I just received (in ETH) the portion of Repayment that is showing as paid on the dashboard. 12.29% paid 
Recovery Plan Update
I wanted to share an update on the recovery plan:
Earlier today, the first round of remediation payments was successfully executed. A total of 152.83 ETH has been distributed so far, out of the 169.267 ETH allocated for Round 1.
A small group of wallets (approx 20) has been flagged as high-risk. These users will need to open a support ticket and complete a KYC verification process before their funds can be released. This additional step is required to ensure compliance and security throughout the remediation process.
If you did not receive your payment or believe there may be an issue, please open a support ticket in the Moonwell Discord.
Affected users can also track the progress of the remediation and verify their expected allocation using this link. Simply paste your wallet address to check your status and the amount you should have received.
MFAM & stkMFAM Onboarding
As part of the onboarding plan for MFAM and stkMFAM holders into the Moonwell ecosystem, users can now claim their stkWELL through Merkl.
To claim, go to the dashboard section, where you’ll be able to see and claim your rewards.
Campaign link: https://app.merkl.xyz/users/0x72a9ff01BD169A78A99896be12eA777871246E38
4 Likes
Thank you, @Fechuky_25
I’m very glad to have received the first compensation payment in my wallet.
However, the next payment date and the full roadmap to complete 100% remediation have not yet been disclosed.
Could you please provide this information as soon as possible?
3 Likes
We need a roadmap for remediation. Do understand the longer we drag this out, the more potential losses investors will theoretically lose.
1 Like
