{"@context":{"CIP100":"https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#","hashAlgorithm":"CIP100:hashAlgorithm","body":{"@id":"CIP100:body","@context":{"comment":"CIP100:comment"}}},"hashAlgorithm":"blake2b-256","body":{"comment":"### Vote: YES\n\nI support reimbursing the **original 100,000 ADA deposit**. The loss was caused by a *node-level bug* that allowed an unregistered stake key to submit a governance action — not by any error on the submitter's part. Reimbursing a loss caused by a protocol defect is a reasonable use of the treasury, and the submitter's status as an early participant in on-chain governance only strengthens the case.\n\nI have reservations about the additional **3,000 ADA** proposed as compensation for *lost staking rewards*. My concern isn't the amount, but the precedent: once the treasury begins compensating opportunity cost alongside principal, future proposals will have grounds to claim similar time-value losses from any bug-related delay, with no clear boundary on how far that logic extends.\n\nI'd have preferred to vote on the principal and the opportunity-cost compensation separately. Since that option isn't available here, I'm voting **YES** on the strength of the principal reimbursement, while registering that I don't think opportunity-cost compensation should become a standing practice without a clearer, bounded policy for when it applies.\n\n---\n\n### DRep Delegation Info\n\n* **CIP-1694 DRep ID:**\n`drep1y28xhrjxe496rnle8ln3slpggnp8leu3mn244ujrhwet0cc2vmte4`\n* **Legacy DRep ID (CIP-105):**\n`drep13e4cu3kdfwsul7fluuv8c2zycfl70ywu64d0ysamk2m7xrv7rsv`"}}