I just want to clarify one point regarding the claim that users affected by the previous crvUSD depeg incident were compensated.
A compensation proposal was indeed put forward for the June 12, 2024 crvUSD depeg incident, and an on-chain vote was later created. However, that vote was rejected and the compensation was not executed.
As I understand it, a major reason for the rejection was concern around setting a precedent for using protocol or grants funds to reimburse user losses from LlamaLend incidents.
In my view, both cases should be treated consistently. If the DAO previously decided not to compensate affected users in the June 12 incident in order to avoid setting such a precedent, then the same standard should also apply here. Alternatively, if the DAO now believes compensation is appropriate in this case, then it should also explain why this situation is materially different from the previous one, or reconsider the treatment of the earlier affected users as well.
For reference: