Reimbursement for corrupted staking ledgers
Beneficiary:SUMMARY
The Polkadot runtime upgrade to v1.1.2 introduced an unintentional breaking change that prevented three staking accounts from receiving staking rewards across multiple eras. This proposal seeks to reimburse these accounts for the rewards they should have earned for backing validators and securing the network.
The process was detailed by core developer gpestana in multiple articles compiled in the following Polkadot Forum post:
Recover corrupted Staking ledgers in Polkadot and Kusama
The referendum could not be proposed until the runtime upgrade to v1.4.0, which corrected the balance state of one of the affected accounts (PR 538).
TIMELINE
- 2024-02-19 Breaking change introduced in runtime upgrade v1.1.2
- 2024-03-15 Hotfix on runtime upgrade to v1.1.3.
- 2024-10-15 Runtime upgrade to v1.3.3 set the correct ledger/stash status.
- 2025-02-26 The balance issue for one of the accounts was corrected on runtime v.1.4.0.
PROPOSAL DETAILS
Each account faced a unique situation, and the analysis took into account the bonded funds at the time rewards ceased, the number of eras the payee account went without receiving rewards, and the average APY during that period.
Below is the information for each affected account:
Affected account: 138fZsNu67JFtiiWc1eWK2Ev5jCYT6ZirZM288tf99CUHk8K
- Payee account: 12YcbjN5cvqM63oK7WMhNtpTQhtCrrUr4ntzqqrJ4EijvDE8
- Last era with rewards: 1400
- Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 8,556
- Last era with no rewards: 1597
- Eras without rewards: 197
- Average APY during that period (%): 17.18
- Missing rewards (DOT): 1,603.46
Affected account: 15bt67qghz8hJxCUPgAXmzVxUBHLpPN41RVm2nwMFyLWByVE
- Payee account: 15bt67qghz8hJxCUPgAXmzVxUBHLpPN41RVm2nwMFyLWByVE
- Last era with rewards: 1646
During era 1526, the stash account 14kwUJW6rtjTVW3RusMecvTfDqjEMAt8W159jAGBJqPrwwvC was wrongly scored with 0 in the 'voterlist'. However, the account 15bt67 kept receiving rewards until era 1646. During era 1683, the account 14kwUJ 'voterlist' score was updated and the same account started to receive rewards at era 1684. - Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 4,261
- Last era with no rewards: 1683
- Eras without rewards: 37
- Average APY during that period (%): 12.93
- Missing rewards (DOT): 587.11
Affected account: 12gmcL9eej9jRBFT26vZLF4b7aAe4P9aEYHGHFzJdmf5arPi
- Payee account: 12gmcL9eej9jRBFT26vZLF4b7aAe4P9aEYHGHFzJdmf5arPi
- Last era with rewards: 1402
- Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 7,110
- Last era with no rewards: 1613
- Eras without rewards: 211
- Average APY during that period (%): 16.96
- Missing rewards (DOT): 1,313.76
Comments (3)
Proposal Passed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (68)0.0 PAS
Support0.0 PAS
Nay (2)0.0 PAS
Comments (3)
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of non-abstain voters according to our voting policy. This proposal has received five aye and zero nay votes from ten members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The voters overwhelmingly supported the referendum, expressing a consensus that assistance for individuals needing help with their accounts due to a faulty upgrade was essential. Many believed that these accounts deserved to be rewarded with staking rewards. The proposal received validation from discussions in the forum, and there were no objections raised against it. Overall, the comments reflected a strong agreement on the necessity and fairness of the proposed measures.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
I can confirm that the above bug was indeed something that happened, Parity/Fellowship has been busy cleaning up all the leftover pieces of it for around a year now. Since we have a precedence of reimbursing any loss of funds that happens due to core protocol bugs (and NO USER ACTION), I think this is a fair ask, ergo a yes from my side.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of non-abstain voters according to our voting policy. This proposal has received five aye and zero nay votes from ten members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
I can confirm that the above bug was indeed something that happened, Parity/Fellowship has been busy cleaning up all the leftover pieces of it for around a year now. Since we have a precedence of reimbursing any loss of funds that happens due to core protocol bugs (and NO USER ACTION), I think this is a fair ask, ergo a yes from my side.