@LlamaRisk just posted a proposal at sDOLA-long2 Repayment Funds Source Proposal to fund the sDOLA-long2 reimbursement (~$822K target, 27 affected borrowers from the March oracle exploit) from ~$1.14M of stranded L2 admin fees that have not yet been burned or distributed. Source-wise these are by-design DAO-revenue.
A question for everyone who has been following the CRV-long situation in this thread.
The CRV-long market has been distressed since October 2025. The recovery pool is operational since Vote #1400 closed on 2026-04-30, but it currently sits at around $63K TVL against ~$754K of bad debt and has no funding source attached. The sDOLA-long2 incident happened on 2026-03-02. A fully-scoped funding proposal landed on the forum two months later, drawing on the same kind of DAO-revenue source.
CRV-long has been waiting seven months. The new proposal does not mention this market or this thread anywhere in its text.
Is that fair?
Not asking rhetorically. Honestly interested in how people who have been tracking the CRV-long market see it. Should the same source carry both cases in some shape, or is there a principled reason one LlamaLend market gets fully funded from common DAO-revenue while a parallel one with a longer-running and comparable-size loss waits indefinitely on arbers and external LPs?
Weighing in on the /t/11069 thread directly on the scope question would be useful, since the proposal is moving toward vote with no acknowledgement of CRV-long in its text.