I definitely consider you a hero JHGrove! This is why you should be rewarded a fat bug bounty.
But the rewards that were given to 0x261f…ea9c were drastically outsized for the amount of value being provided.
It was a horrible oversight to launch this UniV3 program, and I take that on as my own failure. It was my responsibility to research this and I failed and we launched a badly designed farm.
Our UniV3 rewards, over incentivized concentrated liquidity, and while 0x261f…ea9c may have only earned a fraction of your rewards from 1-tick positions, 0x261f…ea9c had a lot of concentrated liquidity such that you earned over 100k worth of rewards from UniV3.
0x261f…ea9c had
6 - 1 tick positions
2 - 2 tick positions
2 - 3 tick positions
2 - 4 tick positions
2 - 5 tick positions
2 - 6 tick positions
2 - 7 tick positions
2 - 9 tick positions
3 - larger positions
I don’t think it makes sense to give 0x261f…ea9c a pass, I think it makes sense for us to protect our protocol and zero out the addresses that were taking advantage of our flawed system and benefitted greatly for doing so… no matter who owns the addresses or what the state of mind of the address holder was.
And it also makes sense for us to give you a fat bug bounty reward for telling us about the flaw. With 50k Liquid GIV you will be able to get a lot of rewards and it will be fair.
I just don’t think it is right to judge an address by who owns it. I consider you a Giveth team member, and I know you weren’t maliciously participating in this program. It was a wild ride, and there is no perfect solution, but we took objective measures to find these 3 addresses as the primary addresses that used expertise to game this poorly designed program, and i don’t think it would be right to change the results because awesome Givethers held the address.