Thank you, @zaatar , for putting this together. While I do sympathize with the victims, I feel that the DAO stepping in could open a Pandora’s box that we may not know how to close, especially if the customers signed an agreement acknowledging the risks of losing their funds.
I do, however, have a question: did PNF/PNI (Grove) ever promote the company to investors as a trusted alternative on Pocket Network official documentations? If the answer is yes, then PNF or Grove needs to foot the bill considering they were the entities handling all communication mediums. And if the answer is no, then neither the DAO, PNF, nor PNI should intervene. But in either case, the DAO should most certainly not engage in this matter. Otherwise, we will be creating a dangerous precedent.
My reason is that The DAO does not have a say in anything other than through voting. If N4A was officially added to any documents, no one voted for it. In terms of reputation, others have alluded that this could hurt us instead. I don’t fully agree with that sentiment. I don’t believe doing absolutely nothing would hurt us. However, it could benefit us if we do something. It would show that we reject the notion that ‘not your keys, not your token,’ and that anyone can steal your funds, which is obviously the opposite sentiment across all other crypto communities.
In POKT, we believe in accountability. It’s in our DNA.