DLABS minted 20M rep to itself on ETH POW - giving DLABS 90+% REP on the ETH POW fork.
Subsequently DLABS drained all the ETH in the POW Treasury and dumped it for ETH.
The funds 70 ETH ($94,152.24) have been returned to DXdao: Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan
Transparency screenshots:
Selling 8069.5 ETHW to 70.72976 ETH (after fees)
Oh shit - I actually sent too much to the DAO 
You should be able to claim some of it back now as a reward.
Awesome work @dlabs I was too scared to venture into the world of ETHPOW, but DXdao benefits from your fearlessness.
I definitely think there should be a bounty reward for this. 5-10% or something?
With respect, and at the risk of being the scrooge as usual; I think Dave does great work, and this was executed greatly, but this is something that I had personally discussed with a minimum of 3 contributors leading up to the ETHW fork, and Dave is a Level 7 contributor whose remit includes treasury management. If it had been a Level 1 contributor that had spotted this without anyone else thinking about it, and/or conversations between other contributors and the wider community, then it’s a little different. But it should kind of be par for the course for Level 7 contributors to be undertaking this kind of stuff for the benefit of the DAO. If I’d known there would have been a bounty here, I’d have just done it myself and foregone the bounty for the DAO’s benefit. But through regular comms with Dave in PMs throughout, I felt assured it was under control (which it was - executed well as above!).
Fully supportive of any costs for DLABS being paid by the DAO for any accountancy issues/expenses that arise from him using his Kraken account, that’s different. But really think this level of attention is encompassed by a Level 7 position and its compensation.
That’s fair. I did think there was some risk in operating on ETHPOW blockchain as well as selling the ETHPOW on a centralized exchange that I didn’t want to engage with.
I have few questions about this:
My answer:
When I first saw it I was like, wow dave, you found and recover the 90k USD for us!, but now seeing that it was previously discussed I know that is not the case, nevertheless, he actively took action on doing it by himself and transferring the funds to his account, selling them on an exchange why no one was looking, was anyone taking a look at dxdao POW chain? I don’t think so. So he could have done it from an anonymous account and gotten the ETH POW for himself, and he didn’t.
So despite this action might be under his responsibility I think dxDao should reward this honest and committed behavior. Considering that these funds could have been stolen and dlabs took some risk on doing the transfer in a centralized exchange for dxdao.
I would vote in favor of 10% of the funds being transferred back to dlabs, and I will wait to see how the community receives this action, if there is not too much opposition on this I will submit a proposal myself for this to happen on mainnet.
% of transferred funds dlabs should get as reward
0 voters
Again, the risk of using a cex would be mitigated by a commitment to reimburse any accountancy costs to dlabs, which is more than reasonable.
But, to be more blunt this time, this culture of random bonuses here and there is not really helpful - is this not what Coordinape is for?
We have
The levelled compensation structure: Dave is recognised as someone that does excellent work, which comes with a lot of responsibility; this really falls under that
Co-ordinape ‘bonuses’: Does this not cover anything extra, given that it’s discretionary amongst contributors?
It’s ‘only’ $9k, but I do feel strongly here that if it’s deemed that this level of attention is not part of a Level 7 treasury manager’s role, then the compensation associated with Level 7 is far too large. The ETHW fork was extremely well advertised, so being aware of its implications would have been well within Dave’s expected remit.
FWIW, I also note that Dave hasn’t actually asked for a bonus here, so it is no reflection of my opinion of his work or character - Level 7 is well deserved, IMO. This is more a cultural and structural issue, and setting a precedent of high standards, and doing things for the DAO’s benefit, as the norm.
And finally, to reiterate: If it was clear that a retrospective bounty was on the table here, I’d have just done this myself and forfeited it. Dave can confirm that I was in comms with him before any action was even taken on the ETHW chain. It may seem to many like this was an ‘oh, free money down the sofa’ situation, but it was more like… ‘planned, but not publicly communicated for risk of someone else competing for it’.
Yes, I was - Dave can confirm. But, to open up a can of worms here - if you’re correct that nobody else was on the contributor side (no idea if that’s true or not), why not? The airdrop was well advertised, and we all know DXdao has a lot of ETH. Surely this would fall within plenty of peoples’ remits, especially Levels 6,7,8, not just Dave’s.
Just an FYI:
@adamazad and I spent the whole day today trying to access the 2.5k ETH (~$30k) in the DXD token address.
We took control of the ProxyAdmin which owns the DXD token contract. We then deployed new proxy contracts to upgrade the DXD contract. However, what we feared was true: ETHW blacklisted the DXD contract address. See: Block address in core by Paul286 · Pull Request #5 · ethereumpow/go-ethereum · GitHub
We knew there was an intention to blacklist it, but wanted to check if it was actually in place. We tried sending ETH to the DXD contract address and it worked, in fact after our DXD token contract upgrade we’re even able to withdraw (worthless) ERC20 tokens from the contract - just the ETH itself is frozen.
DXD token on ETHW: ETHW Block 0xa1d6...725521 Block Address Balance Total No. of Transaction | OKLink Blockchain Explorer
In other news, we’re now perfectly prepared to update the actual DXD token on mainnet to withdraw the ETH and USDC locked in there.
Yes - Connor reached out before I submitted any TXs on ETHW. I was already planning to do so but waiting to not be susceptible to replay transactions. I was in contact with a number of people during the process just as to not be accused of trying to steal the funds in case someone noticed what I was doing. @hughesconnor @Powers and @adamazad were aware of what I was doing. I didn’t want to pass a proposal first - as it would have just added overhead and unnecessary time on top of the time already required.
EDIT: and I’m fine with no cut 
I don’t see this as a random bonus, and I don’t think Coordinape is for this, as I understand in coordinape you give tokens among teammates to show recognition for the work done and you can add notes over it.
This is not a few hundred dollars operation, it is almost 100k USD recovered, and more after we upgrade the DXD token.
Also, I don’t think rewarding these very proactive and beneficent actions for the dao can hurt it, this is the second time DXdao is giving a bonus like this (the first time was Retrospective Contributor Bonuses for Shipping) so it is not like we do it every time, and in this case, I think dlabs deserves a bonus for doing it, I know all the technicalities on what he did and what he is doing upgrading the DXD token to get the locked ETH from it, and it is not easy.
If there were other people involved maybe the bonus can be divided among them, this would be for Dave to decide when and if he receives the funds, for now, my proposal will be to send the reward funds that we agree on the poll there to dlabs, and in case the proposal pass and Dave doesn’t want them he can send them back or vote against the proposal.
Isn’t that what this is trying to achieve? Showing recognition for a well executed operation? Seems like it fits the purpose of co-ordinape perfectly; otherwise, why not just scrap co-ordinape and do this stuff ad-hoc like this?
Yeah, but Dave is also the treasury manager. Almost everything he does for the DAO involves significant sums of money. I don’t think that’s a qualifier in this case for a bonus.
But then what’s the point in having Level 6,7,8 contributors at all? Isn’t this all encompassed and expected within the scope of that position? My main point here is that the standards for that level of position, and the compensation it commands, should be extremely high, and encompass this level of attention. If it doesn’t, and this falls outside of the standards expected by a Level 7 contributor (therefore commanding a bonus), then I think the conversation turns to whether Level 7 compensation is too high for the standard expected. It’s a case of can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either this level of attention is part of the role, or it’s not and the role is overpaid (in my view). I think Dave does great work, and is deserving of a Level 7 role (at least!), but my point is this: why wouldn’t a Level 7 contributor be expected, as part of their role, to execute an operation like this, within their direct line of responsibilities, without issue?
FWIW, the token upgrade to the DXD token contract, in this case, resulted in no extra funds being ‘recovered’. As above, the ETHW chain blacklisted the address. I’m similarly impressed with the speed of the completed work, but it was already on the to-do list for the DAO for a while due to the funds stuck there on mainnet. So, that portion that you reference was work that was going to be done regardless; would we have paid a bonus for it if it was done just to recover the 2500 ETH and 100k USDC on mainnet as has been planned for months?
