Recently, the decentralised exchange dYdX has been at the centre of discussions after the final closure of the migration bridge for ethDYDX tokens. This decision has left more than 45,000 investors locked out with assets worth more than $25 million. Influencer Andrey Sobolev spoke about this. Incrypted spoke to him and found out the details […] Сообщение Community calls on dYdX Foundation to restore $25 million migration bridge due to blocked tokens появились сначала на INCRYPTED.Recently, the decentralised exchange dYdX has been at the centre of discussions after the final closure of the migration bridge for ethDYDX tokens. This decision has left more than 45,000 investors locked out with assets worth more than $25 million. Influencer Andrey Sobolev spoke about this. Incrypted spoke to him and found out the details […] Сообщение Community calls on dYdX Foundation to restore $25 million migration bridge due to blocked tokens появились сначала на INCRYPTED.

Community calls on dYdX Foundation to restore $25 million migration bridge due to blocked tokens

2025/09/18 21:35
  • After the closure of the dYdX cross-chain bridge, more than 41.6 million ethDYDX ($27 million) remained locked in the smart contract, affecting about 45,000 investors.
  • Community members have called on the dYdX Foundation to take initiatives to restore token migration.

Recently, the decentralised exchange dYdX has been at the centre of discussions after the final closure of the migration bridge for ethDYDX tokens. This decision has left more than 45,000 investors locked out with assets worth more than $25 million. Influencer Andrey Sobolev spoke about this. Incrypted spoke to him and found out the details of the situation.

The bridge that allowed the conversion of ethDYDX from Ethereum to native DYDX on the dYdX Chain was shut down on 13 June 2025.

It should be noted that the decision to close the cross-chain bridge was made back in December 2024 as a result of a DAO vote by the community, when support for the wethDYDX smart contract was discontinued. Back then, token holders were given a six-month transition period.

In June 2025, another vote was held, after which the protocol stopped working. At the same time, the tokens remained frozen in the contract.

According to him, the community expects the dYdX Foundation team to initiate a proposal to rebuild the bridge and agree with delegates on its permanent opening until the token migration is complete.

He noted that there are other solutions for this, and the team has all the resources to implement them, but currently it is choosing to blur responsibility and avoid admitting a mistake, referring to the fact that the decision was made by a DAO vote:

The old token holders affected by the bridge closure understand that their independent initiative to resume migration will be rejected by the validators, Sobolev said. According to him, the major DYDX token holders are interested in “withdrawing retailer tokens from circulation and thus getting rid of the excess supply on the market they openly stated this at the forum.”

The crypto influencer stressed that the community expects the dYdX Foundation team to initiate a proposal to rebuild the bridge and agree with delegates to support it.

He noted that some community members are even preparing an appeal to regulators:

Incrypted sent a request for comment to the dYdX Foundation. At the time of publication, our team has not received an official response.

In March of this year, dYdX founder and CEO Antonio Giuliano announced an update to the project’s roadmap.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

I really like what Pavel mentioned about not using a mobile phone. Essentially, this is an "information fasting" approach to the challenges of information overload, contrasting with the "food fasting" that everyone loves using apps. One is metaphysical, the other is physical, but ultimately, both affect the mind and body, influencing hormones like cortisol. Now and in the future, attention is the scarcest resource. Being able to freely disconnect from electronic devices is a luxury, a freedom with its own barriers. Pavel is also an extreme craftsman. The advantage of being a craftsman is that you can lead a small team to create a killer app. However, the limitation is that Telegram, as the largest instant messaging software outside of China and the US, cannot become another Tencent platform. This same culture has also influenced its Web3 project, TON. By the way, let me talk about my close observation of TON over the past four years as the first Chinese institutional investor in the world. 1. The wrong technological path was taken. TON's stubborn insistence on using C++ seems like a kind of technological purist obsession. Historically, Russians have repeatedly taken the wrong turn on the "data technology tree": the Soviet Union failed to adapt to the transistor revolution, became obsessed with vacuum tube performance optimization, and missed the entire chip wave. They often overemphasize performance and control, but neglect the ecosystem and development experience. TON's SDK, toolchain, and documentation ecosystem lack standardization, making the development threshold too high; this is not a syntax problem, but a problem of lacking platform thinking. 2. Uneven ecological composition. Currently, it's basically only Russians and Chinese who are active, but resource allocation is clearly biased towards the Russian-speaking region. This is something everyone is already familiar with. 3. Oligopoly. Funding, traffic, and narrative resources within the ecosystem are concentrated on a few "top" companies/projects. Everyone knows they must curry favor with the "top" teams, but mid-tier projects are severely squeezed out. There is also a long-term power struggle between foundations and the oligopolistic "top" companies, resulting in constant internal friction. 4. Failure to accept oneself. Accepting and reconciling with oneself is crucial for any individual or organization. Only on this basis can you face yourself honestly and leverage your strengths while mitigating your weaknesses. However, TON seems obsessed with pitching to Musk, persuading American investors, and getting to the White House. The truth is, no matter how hard it tries, in the eyes of others, TON remains a public chain with a Russian background. In contrast, BNB didn't try to play the "American" role. Instead, it first became the most popular chain in the Eastern Time Zone, simultaneously creating a sense of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) among Westerners, before smoothly expanding internationally—a much more effective approach. 5. The story of "adoption for 1 billion users" has been told for four years, and it's still just a story. Pavel keeps telling a grand story of "connecting Telegram's 1 billion users with the blockchain world," but this story has yet to truly materialize. The reason isn't that the vision is false, but rather structural constraints: In order to survive and ensure Pavel's personal safety (in recent years, Pavel has become increasingly obsessed with his physical safety, given several incidents, including the recent events in France), Telegram must maintain a "superficial" separation from TON to avoid crossing regulatory red lines; this separation prevents TON from ever truly integrating with Telegram's ecosystem. Even stablecoins like USDE have maintained a supply of only a few hundred million—indicating that the story is grand, but the reality is small. TON possesses the perfectionism of engineering geeks, yet lacks the warmth of ecological collaboration; it has a massive entry point, but is hampered by regulatory realities; it has its own advantages, but has not yet reconciled with itself. It has a narrative and ideals, but these need to be transformed into a sustainable balance of systems and incentives. I wish the TON ecosystem will continue to improve.
Share
PANews2025/10/30 14:00